&Questions Answers

the chair . RONR (12th ed .) 39:5 . However, the chair instead allowed debate on the main motion, and then an amendment that would change the date to a time period allowed by the bylaws .

There is a timeliness requirement to raise a Point of Order—that is, it must be raised promptly when the breach of the rules occurs . One of the exceptions to the timeliness requirement is if a main motion that has been adopted conflicts with the bylaws of the club . See RONR (12th ed .) 23:5-6 .

The main motion was pending, hadn’t yet been adopted, and an amendment had become the immediately pending question . Therefore, the chair should have ruled the Point of Order not well taken, since it was not raised promptly when the breach occurred, and the exception to the requirement that the Point of Order be timely was not met .

If the amendment to change the month of the meeting was subsequently adopted, then the main motion as amended would have been in order to adopt . If the amendment was instead lost, then the chair would have to rule the main motion out of order since it would be improper as stated due to the conflict with the bylaws . If somehow, the main motion as originally stated was adopted, it would still be null and void because of the conflict with the bylaws . See RONR (12th ed .) 39:5 .

In the situation described, after the chair ruled the Point of Order well taken, and the main motion and amendment fell to the ground, a member still could have made a new main motion to hold the annual meeting in a time period allowed by the bylaws .

Our club held its elections at our annual meeting in July, and the audio equipment at the meeting wasn’t the best. The microphone and speakers had some technical difficulties while candidates were giving their nominating speeches. It was a small group, and no one complained that they couldn’t hear the candidates and no one raised a Question of Privilege regarding the matter.

Balloting began and the meeting was in recess to for the casting and counting of the ballots. During the recess, a member mentioned to a candidate that their speech was “unintelligible”. That candidate approached the president and stated that at least one