J. J.

He is already missed.

Actually, I think that the rule you suggested, "no points of order are permitted" is quite effective, though not advisable.

Absent anything else in the bylaws on how to remove an officer, I would say a trial is necessary. The bylaw is silent on how the person is removed; the RONR default (62:16) would be controlling. They bylaws do not "provide otherwise." The assembly could adopt a special rule modifying that.

It would not violate anything in 9:31 any more than saying that someone must be recognized to violates a right to debate (42:2-5). There may be questions relating to recognition (see 25:11).

@Richard BrownIf I understand this correctly, Mr. Honemann is suggesting that motion itself is out of order without regard to a special meeting.

Our very good friend George Mervosh passed away this passed weekend. I just heard from Sandy.

I agree with both Mr. Novosielski and Dr. Kapur. The rule prohibiting suspension is not suspendable, though it could be amended (possibly by less than a 2/3 vote). A rule requiring a 9/10 vote would require a greater than 9/10 vote to suspend.

A quorum must be maintained during the whole meeting.

I would think so, if the board's action can be reversed by the membership meeting.

1. Who elects the president? 2. What is your quorum?

I don't know what you were discussing then.

It does say that.

I think we are on the same page. I would not feel that the incidental motion "to suspend the rules and permit the vice president serve as chair during the consideration of the next motion on the order of business" would be dilatory, however. It could be made before (or with different wording after) the introduction of the next item of business, because it is a new question.

Which "individual motions?" I think the incidental motion to suspend the rules would not be dilatory, if make in regard to a main motion that is about to be introduced, even if it were made before each main motion was introduced. Further, the initial incidental main motion (IMM), "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session and permit the vice president to serve as chair," would be in order. If it was made, and defeated, prior to the first item of business being introduced, I think it could be reconsidered. Once that first item of business is disposed of, I would question the renewal of the motion "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session and permit the vice president to serve as chair," could be renewed in that form. At some point later, I could see a situation where renewal might be possible.

Just for the record, I have said "No motion is dilatory, that the assembly chooses to entertain (no matter how dilatory it really is)." This is not a question of if the assembly finds the question dilatory, but if the chair should rule that way. Those are two quite different standards.

No, I said that "dilatory" is ultimately the judgement of the majority, not the result. That is covered in 38:5 1.

I think that making the same or a similar incidental main motion after each main motion is considered may be dilatory.

The only difference that I would have is on renewal; I would not see that as generally being a new question. I could see how an incidental main motion could be made "to suspend the rules and permit the vice president serve as chair during the consideration of motions #36 through #40." That said, I would agree that an incidental motion "to suspend the rules and permit the vice president serve as chair during the consideration of motion #_____," could be made just prior to each motion being introduced.

Assume that the motion "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session and permit the vice president to serve as chair" is defeated. May the motion be reconsidered? When motion #37 is about to be introduce, is it in order for a member to move "to suspend the rules and permit the vice president serve as chair during the consideration of motion #37?"

What if the body recessed and he did it then?

If there is a tie for an election, the assembly votes again. Members arriving by that point may vote (45:56).

I think it is unknown, unless we have seen the bylaws in question.

It does not conflict, but I wanted to state it a bit more strongly.

I agree, but I think that the role of the Federation's relationship with the more local association is key. Some parent groups do have regulations on what the local can do and could have a bylaw clause prohibiting a local from creating a local bylaw permitting absentee or proxy voting. Many of the people here belong to a group that requires local member groups to use the current edition of RONR as its parliamentary authority. Even if one of these local groups wished to adopt another authority in its bylaws, it could not.

The society has a several day session. 1. At some point, a member moves "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session and permit the vice president to serve as chair." There will be several different items of business to be considered, including motion #37. Is that motion, in all cases, an incidental or an incidental main motion? 2. That motion fails, but when motion #37 is about to be introduce, a member moves "to suspend the rules and permit the vice president serve as chair during the consideration of motion #37?" Is that, in all cases, an incidental or an incidental main motion?