J. J.

Members
  • Content count

    2,413
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About J. J.

  • Rank
    "Friday night, and the strip is hot... "
  • Birthday 01/01/1963

Profile Information

  • Location
    Philadelphia
  • Interests
    Procedure, History, Politics, Genealogy, a Missing Person Case in Central Pennsylvania, and, of course, Donna Summer.

Recent Profile Visitors

675 profile views
  1. If the bylaws grant him that power, yes.
  2. If the body is using it, then the rule on p. 17 applies.
  3. Assuming the House Rules were properly adopted by the assembly, the Governing Board would have full authority to "removed, suspended, or expelled from his office or the <organization>, or from both." I agree with my learned colleague Mr. Mervosh that the ability to fine a member must be placed in the bylaws. The process used for the Governing Board to exercise this authority as explained in the parliamentary authority.
  4. I would not object to the member requesting that the fact she abstained be noted. That is a Request and would require a majority to approve.
  5. A parliamentary authority, or procedural rules may be established by repeated usage (p. 17, ll. 7-10). See also page 19.
  6. One person described it thus: "In short, the general parliamentary law, is a broad, generally applicable, set of rules that apply to all assemblies, while parliamentary procedure refers to those rules dealing with a specific assembly or organization. General parliamentary law is general in nature; it is the broad rules that are generally in effect if the society adopts no conflicting rules." "Common parliamentary law" is synonymous "general parliamentary law." A codification or expression of these rules can be found in parliamentary authorities, like the current edition of RONR. Note: The terms "common parliamentary law" and "general parliamentary law" are not synonymous with the term "common law."
  7. Agreed, however the motion was adopted without debate. It could be such a bad motion, that debate (i.e. the reasons for rescinding), may not be needed.
  8. The society could possibly adopt a higher level rule that could supersede rules in the bylaws.
  9. I would also note that no reason would have to be given to rescind a motion.
  10. For the record, I did not write these bylaws.
  11. I do post under a pseudonym, abet an extremely transparent one.
  12. You can create a rule that rules in the nature of a rule of order in the bylaws cannot be suspended. You can create a rule that prevents the bylaws from being amended. You better adopt both if you don't your bylaws to ever be amended.
  13. Yes. A rule that says something can or can't be amended is a rule in the nature of a rule of order. A rule that, for example, that says, "a secondary amendment may not be amended," is a rule of order, no matter if it appears in the bylaws, a special rule or a parliamentary authority. There would be no problem suspending that rule. What if instead of "a secondary amendment" the rule, now solely in bylaws said "Article II may not be amended? " Wouldn't sill be a rule in the nature of a rule of order?
  14. I think to get the result of making this not subject to amendment, even under suspension, my hypothetical Article III would have include these clauses: Section x. "The provisions of this Article shall be incapable of being amended." Section x+1. "Any rule in this Article in the nature of a rule of order cannot be suspended, unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension." (That is based on an existing set of bylaws.)
  15. If there was clause under the amendment provision of the bylaws (Article XXVII hypothetically) stating that: Article XXVII These Bylaws, except for Article III, may be amend by a two thirds vote at any meeting provide there has been at least thirty days notice have been given. Article III may not be amended. Article XXVII could be amended to strike out the words "except for Article III" and "Article III may not be amended." If adopted, Article III could be amended at a future point. (I have seen this.) If Article III said, as its last line, "None of the provisions of this Article may be amended." and the assembly were to amend those provisions, I think that a point of order that this violated the bylaws would have to be timely. An amendment does seem to be a rule in the nature of order. I will with the adage that a bylaw that says that it cannot be suspended cannot be suspended, but that is not the case here.