Gary Novosielski

No. The minutes should reflect only what was actually done at that meeting prior to adjournment. Written communication to the members is fine, but it does not replace the requirement that the tellers report must be read, and repeated by the chair, and the result announced by the chair at a properly called meeting. I concur with Mr. H.

A quaint notion, but No does cover it.

That's true, but there is no rule in RONR prohibiting non-members from attending a meeting. It says that they have no right to attend, but the decision of who may and who may not attend is left up to the assembly. There is a rule preventing them from speaking in debate, and that rule could not be superseded by a standing rule, but it could be suspended by a 2/3 vote, and it could be superseded by a special rule of order.

I was about to feel his forehead.

There is no advance notice requirement in RONR for getting anything on the agenda. But then again, there is no requirement in RONR for even having an agenda in the first place--especially for regularly scheduled meetings with a frequency of at least quarterly, where the Standard Order of Business in RONR is almost always sufficient. You may have special rules on this in your organization, of which we would have no knowledge

Ultimately, the way this (and similar matters of bylaws interpretation) are decided is that someone who believes (or maintains, arguendo) that the person is not rightly a member raises a Point of Order that the membership should not be considered as valid. The chair rules on the matter, subject to Appeal, in which case the matter is settled by a vote of the assembly. The chair may also place the matter directly before the assembly for a decision.

In other news, water is wet.

Er, ironically enough, that's "once in a while"

It seems unlikely to me that the requirements in the bylaws for holding office would be written so as to allow anyone in the state except that one individual to be eligible.

Well, explicit or not, the 2/3 vote is necessary because by the rules in RONR, non-members may not speak in debate. Allowing them to speak is a motion to Suspend the Rules that interfere with their participation. The rule that non-members may not vote may not be suspended--not even with a unanimous vote. That's probably in line with the 1915 version, though not in so many words.

Well, it does raise a possible issue. In order to comply with the rules on RONR, an "electronic" system would have to allow for write-in votes, unless there's something to the contrary in the bylaws.

Yes, if that's how the motion was presented, i.e., Suspend and Agree, you would have to vote against it if you didn't like the color as would anyone else who didn't like any particular detail of the motion. That's the nature of Suspend the Rules. But as Dan pointed out, defeating the motion to Suspend the Rules does not count as a defeat of the underlying motion, so you could move it in the usual amendable form even at the same session, with the color of your choice (subject to amendment).

Your original assumption was probably incorrect, unless you have an unusual rule in your bylaws. The far more common interpretation when a term is vacated is that the ending date of the term does not change, and the person elected or appointed to fill the vacancy does so only for the unexpired remainder of the term. So you would have to stand for election at the normal completion of the term and might win, or might lose.

I think that the fact that there are ten, or twelve, or twenty legitimate opportunities to interrupt are hardly persuasive when the subject situation is not one of them.

Why is this night different--subject to Appeal?

Yes, but nothing is suspended unless the motion is carried, by which time it would presumably have been seconded. The presumptive nesting is a little different, It conceptually consists of an "outer" motion, i.e. one seeking to suspend the outer set of rules that prevent the making of the "inner" motion, which is a motion to agree without debate or amendment, and then having suspended the outer rules, agreeing to passage. If there were a rule preventing in certain circumstances the use of Suspend and Agree, that would not prevent the outer motion from being considered, and if passed, suspending all interfering rules. If that's just too convoluted a procedure for anyone to be comfortable with, there is always a fall-back position of two motions: To Suspend the rules that prevent the use of Suspend and Agree on a given motion; and then, if passed, To Suspend and Agree to the given motion. This is admittedly moot, since I haven't seen anyone contending that such a rule is actually in force in the 11th ed.

I think we've come to the conclusion that it doesn't have anything to do with it. That is, the motion must be allowed for both. The "nesting" referred to the hypothetical situation where there did exist a rule that said the motion could be used only for resolutions previously introduced. In that case, to use it on a resolution that had not been, it would have been necessary to suspend that rule as well. But since a single motion to Suspend is presumed to apply to all suspendible rules that might otherwise interfere, none of that is necessary.

I'm inferring that was what Shmuel meant when he said: But I doubt it would be necessary. After all, Suspend-the-Rules-and-<do something> motions (which, it is worth noting, say rules in the plural), are intended to suspend all rules that would otherwise interfere with the doing of that something. So it seems to me that a motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to.... would automatically have the effect of suspending as a group all (suspendible) rules that would otherwise prevent its use in the instant parliamentary situation. Nesting would seem unnecessary.

No, none of those would be sufficient.

The consequence would have been raising of a Point of Order that adjournment was not in order followed by a ruling by the chair, which, if unfavorable would be subject (with a second) to Appeal and a majority vote. At this late date, a point of order would no longer be timely. You could introduce a motion to censure (reprimand) the chair for violating the rights of a member, but it would have no other effect than to express displeasure, and you'd need majority support to pass it. Edited to add: See the third descriptive characteristic of Adjourn: [RONR 11th ed. page 228, line 9.] "3. Is out of order when another has the floor."

I think it's safe to assume that it could be used for either. If not, that rule could easily be suspended with the motion to Suspend the Rules that interfere with Suspending the Rules and agreeing to the the resolution _________, and to suspend those rules, and to agree to the resolution.

The motion to Adjourn is out of order when another has the floor. [RONR 11th ed. page 228, line 9.] Unless your time had expired, the chair acted improperly. In fact, even if your time had expired, the chair acted improperly, since he should first have told you that your time had expired, and then recognized the person seeking to move to adjourn, which it sounds like he did not do.

The rule that a motion is out of order if it conflicts with the bylaws does not apply to motions in the nature of bylaws amendments.

It's not just "doing harm" that's the criterion. It's doing harm to the organization. Even though an insurance company may be paying, a claim can raise the premium, causing financial "harm" to the organization. I'd say that the organization has the right to protect itself from revealing information about the case beyond what is required. If the plaintiff or claimant was a member of the board, and the situation was complicated, I'd have a problem with that state of affairs. If the claimant was a member of the general membership, and the board conducted it's its deliberations in executive session, and the situation was straightforward, there would be substantially less of a problem. Clearly a plaintiff has a pecuniary interest not common (in fact, in opposition) to other members, and should not vote. Depending on the facts, I can foresee some cases where doing nothing would be appropriate, and others where removal from membership, or suspension from membership until final disposition of the case, would be within the rights of the society to consider. Edited to add: Perhaps my views are colored by my experience on a publicly elected school board, where among the statutory qualifications for membership were that the candidate or member shall not be a party to any lawsuit against or contract with the board. It seems a good rule to me and I think the self-preservation language in RONR is flexible enough to allow for enforcing something like that when the facts appear to require it.

I know you know that, and you know I know that, but I wanted to be sure the OP had given it some thought. Many people come in with the idea that the Board can do whatever it wants, including sticking its nose into membership decisions at will, vetoing or reversing them, and similar shenanigans. They're surprised to find the the Board has no powers beyond what the bylaws provide.