RONR, 12th Ed., 41:23(d)

[Dan Honemann]

Those of you who have received a copy of NAP's National Parliamentarian, Volume 85, No. 3, should take a careful look at the Question and Answer found on pages 26-28.  The answer to the question asked is correct in all respects, but I believe that what is said in the last full paragraph on page 27 is in error.

When RONR says, in 41:23(d), that matters that were postponed to, or otherwise made general orders for, a meeting are to be taken up under "General Orders" in the order in which they were made, it means in the order in which they were made general orders for the meeting in progress.  If a motion (motion X) has been postponed to and made a general order for meeting A, and is taken up during meeting A and then postponed to meeting B, it is this second postponement which has made it a general order for meeting B.  If, during meeting A, another motion (motion Y) is introduced and then postponed to meeting B prior to the consideration and postponement of motion X, at meeting B it should be taken up under "General Orders" prior to motion X.  

I'm currently confined to quarters with the flu, and hence a bit foggy, but I think I've got this right. 

 

 

[Rob Elsman]

I think you do have it right.  I'm terribly sorry you have the flu.  Maybe just the thought of some Rob's homemade chicken noodle soup will bring you around.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/5/2024 at 6:23 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I think you do have it right.  I'm terribly sorry you have the flu.  Maybe just the thought of some Rob's homemade chicken noodle soup will bring you around.

I'm feeling better already.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 5/5/2024 at 5:11 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I'm currently confined to quarters with the flu, and hence a bit foggy, but I think I've got this right. 

Seems right to me.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 5/5/2024 at 6:11 PM, Dan Honemann said:

When RONR says, in 41:23(d), that matters that were postponed to, or otherwise made general orders for, a meeting are to be taken up under "General Orders" in the order in which they were made, it means in the order in which they were made general orders for the meeting in progress. 

I agree. 

On 5/5/2024 at 6:11 PM, Dan Honemann said:

If a motion (motion X) has been postponed to and made a general order for meeting A, and is taken up during meeting A and then postponed to meeting B, it is this second postponement which has made it a general order for meeting B.  If, during meeting A, another motion (motion Y) is introduced and then postponed to meeting B prior to the consideration and postponement of motion X, at meeting B it should be taken up under "General Orders" prior to motion X.

This is true in general, where motion Y is simply postponed "to meeting B" with no time specified. However, it may be worth noting that if motion Y is postponed to a particular time of the meeting, it is not taken up before that time even if General Orders has been reached in the order of business. In such a case, it may be that motion X is properly taken up first.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/6/2024 at 11:06 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

This is true in general, where motion Y is simply postponed "to meeting B" with no time specified. However, it may be worth noting that if motion Y is postponed to a particular time of the meeting, it is not taken up before that time even if General Orders has been reached in the order of business . In such a case, it may be that motion X is properly taken up first.

Yes, no doubt about that.  But in my example, motions X and Y were simply postponed to the next meeting, which also appears to be the case with respect to all five of the motions referred to in the NP Q&A.

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/5/2024 at 6:11 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Those of you who have received a copy of NAP's National Parliamentarian, Volume 85, No. 3, should take a careful look at the Question and Answer found on pages 26-28.  The answer to the question asked is correct in all respects, but I believe that what is said in the last full paragraph on page 27 is in error.

When RONR says, in 41:23(d), that matters that were postponed to, or otherwise made general orders for, a meeting are to be taken up under "General Orders" in the order in which they were made, it means in the order in which they were made general orders for the meeting in progress.  If a motion (motion X) has been postponed to and made a general order for meeting A, and is taken up during meeting A and then postponed to meeting B, it is this second postponement which has made it a general order for meeting B.  If, during meeting A, another motion (motion Y) is introduced and then postponed to meeting B prior to the consideration and postponement of motion X, at meeting B it should be taken up under "General Orders" prior to motion X.  

I'm currently confined to quarters with the flu, and hence a bit foggy, but I think I've got this right. 

 

 

Wishing you a speedy recovery.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/6/2024 at 12:50 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Wishing you a speedy recovery.

Actually, I'm feeling fine now, so forget I ever said anything about the flu.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/6/2024 at 1:02 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Actually, I'm feeling fine now, so forget I ever said anything about the flu.

Flu? What flu?

[Rob Elsman]

I told you just the thought of my homemade chicken soup would bring you around!

[Dan Honemann]

If we can finally put my no longer existent flu aside, I would appreciate some serious consideration as to what, if anything, can or should be done about the terribly erroneous advice that the members of NAP have been given in the most recent edition of the NP to which I have referred.

On page 27 we find this sentence, which is referring to what is said in 41:23(d):

"Note that motions postponed as general orders at the previous meeting are 'taken [up] in the order in which they were made,' id. (emphasis added), not the order in which they were postponed." 

This is a remarkably confusing and erroneous assertion.  An example given in the next paragraph of the Q&A compounds this error.

Hopefully, one or more of our regular responders here in this forum who are NAP members will be willing to advise the NP that its readers should not be left with this very troublesome notion.

 

 

[Atul Kapur]

On 5/7/2024 at 12:53 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I would appreciate some serious consideration as to what, if anything, can or should be done about the terribly erroneous advice that the members of NAP have been given in the most recent edition of the NP to which I have referred.

I don't believe that membership in NAP is required to send a letter to the editor.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/7/2024 at 4:05 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I don't believe that membership in NAP is required to send a letter to the editor.

Perhaps it's not required, but such erroneous statements should be a source of embarrassment to NAP members.