Gary Novosielski

What do you mean by ES?

Even if you pass it, a motion to censure cannot remove the fundamental rights of a member such as making motions, participating in debate, and voting. A member should not vote on a matter such as this, but there is no strict prohibition against it. But if any member is disrupting the meeting, that can be dealt with directly. When is X asking these questions? During committee reports? During debate? Out of the blue? Do they have the floor at the time? If not, they should be called to order by the chair. If a question has been asked and answered, the chair does not have to allow repetitions of the same question, and can proceed to recognize someone else. Has the person being called upon to answer actually yielded for the question in the first place? Without more detail it's hard to comment further. But breaches of decorum by members in a meeting need not be tolerated, and speaking without recognition is a breach of decorum. For principles governing discipline at meetings, refer to RONR (12th ed.) 65:1. It sounds like what's needed is a chair who knows the rules and keeps order. A motion to censure won't accomplish much except to express displeasure.

Depends what you mean by help. I can give you a definitive answer that there is no rule in RONR that would stop the President from appointing someone who resigned. So that's why you can't find it in your book. If that helps, then good. But like @Atul Kapur I'm afraid I can't help beyond that because the answer lies beyond RONR in your bylaws. If the bylaws give the President the power to fill vacancies, which is apparently the case, then any limitations on that power would be listed there too.

I can't give you a definite legal answer either. But it seems to me that those who wrote the law had intended to make it hard to vote down a budget, and apparently succeeded. I doubt that a motion to Postpone Indefinitely would be left as a gaping loophole, since technically a Yes vote on the motion is not a vote against the budget, it is a vote not to vote on the budget. Depending on the exact wording, that might make it pass automatically. Anyway, I haven't seen the law, and I'm not qualified to offer legal advice even if I had. Just sayin'.

Since the attorney is probably not a member, it seems pretty sketchy, at least as far as RONR is concerned, but without a lot more information, it's not possible to say for sure. You might want to ask an attorney familiar with public boards in your state. Umm, probably not that one.

So the language quoted in the original question was not, in fact a quote?

Opinion noted. I would suggest that until we receive a reply, we are all still "pre-start"

Yes. Because of the unusual threshold, you don't know what members would have done if things were different. And admittedly, if things were different they wouldn't be the same. But if some members wanted to vote against the motion and the motion failed, those members got what they wanted, so what complaint could they have?

Email votes are prohibited by RONR, unless they are authorized in your bylaws. Let's start there. Are they?

I'm not certain what an "open discussion" is or how an "elector" differs from a member. Is this like an Open Forum (also called the Good of the Order) at the end of a meeting? 41:34 says in relevant part: Although the Good of the Order often involves no business or motions, the practice of some organizations would place motions or resolutions relating to formal disciplinary procedures for offenses outside a meeting (63) at this point. So I guess I'd say it was uncommon, but not unheard of. Or is this even what we're talking about?

I think it's likely that it would be in order, but there's probably no need to do so, since the new chair pro-tem is not obligated to ask for, receive, or follow any advice from the parliamentarian. The chair can eject non-members without a vote of the assembly for breaches of decorum, but it would be a strange Parliamentarian indeed who would do that.

Well it may be something more along the lines of resigning from the office of Immediate Past President without resigning from the reality of being immediate past president. Technically, it's a request to be excused from the duties of IPP, which does make sense.

Okay, we have the title. Now let's have the question.

A lot depends on why it is being considered to be Out of Order. We'll need considerably more detail than that.

Although the typical language is "I object," saying that there should be a vote is essentially calling for the motion to be handled in the regular manner, the same as "I object." Calling for a vote is a denial of unanimous consent. It does not fit the intent or effect of a Division.

I think I have run across this new "feature" myself.

Since this change must necessarily have been accomplished via a bylaws amendment, what do the bylaws say about who is an Officer?

Please stop tail ending on year old threads, and post your new question by starting a new topic.

And mine. If we strictly interpret necessary as a condition that can never occur, we must hold that this language was included in the bylaws for no reason, which we are not permitted to do.

Good Grief, No! But unless you have some special provision in your rules, members are not permitted to "yield time" to others. When they yield the floor, they're finished speaking.

1. Yes it does. 2 Yes; even if not placed on the agenda, by moving it under New Business. Failed motions require no "handling' as such. They are simply noted in the minutes as having been made and rejected. 2.[sic] It's not clear who his refers to, but it's fairly clear that the whole thing is improper in any case. If a deliberative assembly is worthy of the name, members should not have not made a final decision regarding a motion before it is ever made.

But clicking on the footnote superscript will pop up the text of the footnote, too.

The payroll department probably does know who's who, if dues are deducted from the paycheck. As for members, they might like to know who their fellow members are, while those who, where possible, choose not to join the union would probably not like this fact to be known by their fellow workers. But somebody has to be able to ensure that only members are allowed to attend meetings, participate in debate, and vote. If the membership rolls are generally available to members, this task is made easier.

For a full description of what's legal, illegal, counted, ignored, and such. refer to the rules starting at RONR 45:31.

I don't disagree, but the question was worded as asking whether the president had (or presumably needed) permission to vote. If a president is opposed to an action, and the motion fails on a tie vote, he can abstain without having evaded his affirmative duty.