Recess at a meeting without a quorum

[Guest J. J.]

One definite quirk is that those main motions in the fourth case, motions to obtain a quorum, are NOT debatable as per p. 337.

A motion "To call members Kim, Rob, H.W., George, and Jonathan and ask them to come to the meeting," is a leg"

[Guest Ann Rempel]

Well, I just received my first "Thank you." I lived long enough. I used a perfectly reasonable dash. Oh, well. I just wanted to say that "no debate" isn't common sense to me. I might know that calling would be inferior to some other m"

[Guest J. J.]

You could suspend the rules to do that.

My sole argument is that the rules do not make like the one I've suggested debatable at an inquorate meeting.

J. J."

[Guest Kim Goldsworthy]

HWM,

>>. . .garden variety main motions. . .<<

kg: Not so.

Main motions are debatable.

Those first three are NOT debatable in an inquorate meeting;

i.e., their SDC #5 prevails over SDC #5 of a Main Motion;

and t"

[Guest Ann Rempel]

Yes, I think the references to fix the time to which to adjourn, adjourn, and recess are to the privileged form because of the inclusion of the section numbers. It says the first three are governed by the SDCs, which would include that those 3 motions are"

[Guest J. J.]

KG, that is kind of my question. Was it intended to make those first three, recess, adjourn, and a motion scheduling an adjourned meeting, undebatable, when main motions? The fourth type clearly are.

J. J."

[Guest J. J.]

Well, that is surely what it looks like. I'm sort of wondering if that was the intent.

J. J."

[Guest John M.]

>>Was it intended to make those first three, recess, adjourn, and a motion scheduling an adjourned meeting, undebatable, when main motions?<<

I doubt it. I think the sentence referring to the SDCs is intended as a helpful cross-refere"

[Guest J. J.]

I'm not sure about that. The fourth group of motions on that list would be debatable if made at a meeting a quorum; they are not debatable if there is no quorum.

Page 336 actually lists the section numbers for the three motions, so they could ha"

[Guest Trina]

>> I just wanted to say that "no debate" isn't common sense to me. I might know that calling would be inferior to some other method of reaching the guys... <<

> You could suspend the rules to do that. <

At an "

[Guest J. J.]

>>At an inquorate meeting? You can't, can you? <<

Sure you can, especially a rule that some motion wouldn't be debatable. You couldn't, obviously suspend the rule that a quorum was needed.

>>If so, I wonder what the re"

[Guest Trina]

> Sure you can, especially a rule that some motion wouldn't be debatable. <

OK, I must be reading the rule 'the only action that can legally be taken in the absence of a quorum is...' (p. 336) too literally. I assumed that suspending the ru"

[Guest J. J.]

Suspending the rules in relation to some permitted activity would be incidental to that activity.

J. J."

[Guest Trina]

Thanks for clarifying that detail, and apologies for wandering away from the main point of your thread."

[Guest Kim Goldsworthy]

Trina,

>>I must be reading the rule 'the only action that can legally be taken in the absence of a quorum' too literally.<<

kg: If taken literally, then an inquorate meeting could not elect a chairman pro tem, nor a secretary pro "

[Guest J. J.]

>>Thanks for clarifying that detail, and apologies for wandering away from the main point of your thread. <<

Actually, this started out looking at the process for an inquorate meeting electing a secretary pro tem. I was thinking in t"

[Guest Ann Rempel]

The text of ROR, p. 258-259 doesn't contain this confusing language. "The only business that can be transacted in the absence of a quorum is to take measures to obtain a quorum, to fix the time to which to adjourn, and to adjourn, or to take a recess"

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

Perhaps the 11th edition will be a re-print of the 6th?"

[Guest Ann Rempel]

And RO (1893), pp. 135-136, simply states, "...and then no business can be transacted, except simply to adjourn.""

[Guest Rob Elsman]

An election of a secretary pro tem is a main motion that is admissible when the meeting is inquorate, since the assembly has the obligation to have minutes taken of the meeting. If necessary, the election can be admitted as a question of privilege affecti"

[Guest J. J.]

It is not confusing if that the intent is to make those four types of motions undebatable when raised as a main motion. My question is, is that the intent?

J. J."

[Guest Ann Rempel]

The section numbers in parentheses and the four types of allowable motions appears in the first RONR. The 9th edition added the text about being governed by the SDCs. I imagine there was a reason for that additional language. Therefore, I think the curren"

[Guest Rob Elsman]

My guess is that the authors had first in mind the loss of a quorum during the transaction of business, i.e., while a question is pending. Generally, the members' right to debate is only suspended when the purpose of the motion requires it or the assembly"

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

>>Not seeing the forest for the trees seems to be the real problem. Everyone seems to be focused so narrowly on p. 337 that the rest of the book is neglected. That's almost always a recipe for disaster when it comes to interpreting RONR.<<"

[Guest J. J.]

>>Not seeing the forest for the trees seems to be the real problem. Everyone seems to be focused so narrowly on p. 337 that the rest of the book is neglected. That's almost always a recipe for disaster when it comes to interpreting RONR. <<