Gary Novosielski

No. Neither the constitution nor the bylaws may be suspended. If it's absolutely necessary for a motion to be put in place, and you have a quorum, what's the problem? I.e., what rule in the bylaws would prevent this motion from being made? It may be possible in some situations to suspend individual rules if they provide for their own suspension, or are clearly in the nature of "rules of order". More information would be needed to determine what applies in your situation.

Oh yes. I've chaired an election meeting where the call for nominations for Secretary was followed by what seemed an eternity of silence. Members took a sudden and intense interest in their fingernails, or the ceiling tiles, until someone finally broke the silence with, "Okay already, I'll do it", followed by an uncontested election.

Well, I'd be glad to be corrected if I have that wrong, but my understanding was that it does not require a trial. If a motion to ratify an action can be, by a simple one-word amendment, be transformed into a motion to censure, without the need to convene any disciplinary tribunals, then when is a trial required? It that example [RONR §10, under Motion to Adopt and Motion to Ratify], the offense did not take place during a meeting--at least not in the same meeting as the motion. If it is the case that a trial is held, then censure is certainly one of the recommendations that can be returned. But under what circumstances would a motion to censure require a trial? I have no wish to be the source of wrong information. That is mine as well, except as noted above. The logic is that if an offense occurs in a meeting, the assembly deciding the punishment (if any) is entirely composed of eyewitnesses to the offense.

Yes, we need more information. What does the rule in the bylaws say? Rules in the bylaws cannot be "appealed", because if properly adopted, rules in the bylaws are correct by definition. And they usually can't be suspended, but there are exceptions. So tell us what this rule says, and who the "entity" is that is objecting to the use of the rule, and upon what grounds?

Censure falls on the lowest edge of what might be called "discipline" and does not require a trial since, apart from expressing the displeasure of the assembly, it imposes no penalty or abridgement of rights. I'm not sure what distinction you draw between private and public censure. RONR provides only one kind of censure, and as with any sort of discipline, strongly advises that no information concerning it would ever be shared outside the society itself.

Both: The chair has the authority to rule whether a motion is in order; however, If members believe the chair ruled incorrectly, they may put the ruling to a majority vote if two members (a mover and a seconder) Appeal from the decision of the chair. See RONR §24. So, yes, it is possible to second-guess the decision of the chair, but members must be prepared to act on it at the time.

I got crumbs on my waistcoat.

It has been my understanding as well (although I've been "corrected" on that from time to time). Still, I think DH's suggestion for what to do when an election cannot be completed makes practical sense. I agree that there cannot be a typical vacancy in this case. If an officer's term, has expired, but the election of a successor was not completed, and there is no "or until" clause, then there is no unexpired term to fill, so nobody can be appointed to fill it. But there is an office that is vacant--one that may be quite essential--and electing a president pro-tem, say, at each meeting may just not do the trick as that affords no administrative powers. It makes sense to me that the board, if it has the power to fill vacancies, could appoint someone to the office, not for a full term, but only until the election can be completed. In the case of the president in particular, if there is a duly elected VP, the VP would not become president, as would occur with a true vacancy, but could perform the duties "in the absence" of a president, until one was elected.

If notice was required and in place, then the motion to raise the fee might have exceeded the scope of the notice.

Yes, but that just creates the opposite problem.

Well, wouldn't the vice president be in the same pickle as the president?

Now you know.

Maybe they don't know they're no-nothings because they think they're know-nothings. In any case, I think it's unlikely this recommendation will change in the 12th edition.

It's a tempest in search of a teapot.

E-mail voting is prohibited by RONR. So, if your bylaws don't authorize it, it can't happen.

RONR does not deal with recusal. It does say that a member should abstain from voting on a matter in which he has a personal or pecuniary interest, not in common with other members. But it's a "should" rule, not a "must" rule, so the member cannot be prevented from voting. Nothing needs to be recorded in the minutes. The member simply doesn't vote.

It surely is not correct. The debate is optional, but the vote is not if the motion was moved in the normal way as you described. There is an alternate method of passing a measure by unanimous consent which would not require a vote, but the chair must ask for objections, to give dissenters (if any) an opportunity to object, and if none, he must state that the motion is adopted "without objection". If there is even a single objection the question is handled in the normal way and now we're back to voting. But "everyone" who told you that a motion and second were sufficient to pass something is just flat wrong.

There, I fixed that for you. :-) For cases like this, you should try to anticipate the skulduggery and be prepared to use the Appeal process to overturn such blatant violations when they occur. See RONR §24.

In my experience, "central" or "steering" committees are actually in the nature of boards.

Reopening of Nominations may occur after any round of balloting and requires only a majority vote. Closing nominations requireds a 2/3 vote, or may be declared by the chair when no (further) nominations are offered.

I rise in opposition to the amendment. Shouldn't the fact that the name hasn't changed in the last hundred years and that the current authors have recommended this exact language indicate to us that at least as strong "hint" has been leaked that the title is unlikely to change? What if there were to be multiple works that claimed (erroneously, of course) to be successors? I suggest that the sources of possible dispute would be magnified, not reduced; there are already too many books out there with "Roberts Rules" in the title. Only a work with the precisely correct title should be adopted.

I hope you mean a majority vote, and not a 50% vote, which is less than a majority. Frankly, I hope you mean a 2/3 vote which is normally the minimum for removing anyone from anywhere. Apparently you have a board and an "executive". But since executive as a noun means a person, I assume that here, the executive is a group. So the question is executive what? board? committee? washroom? What is the relationship between it and the board and the general membership?

These two statements are in direct conflict. And if the second is accurate, the question in the first is obviously answered, making much of this thread a waste of my and others' time. OUT.

That definition seems fine. A Past President is, ex-officio, a member of the board by virtue of an office held, viz. President--in the past.

I think it could look impartial if moved "at the direction of the committee".