Thomas Ralph

I shall try to use them at some point. And no doubt fail. (Memorial Day is not celebrated here, hence no parades; it is a public holiday for other reasons but the promised barbecue weather has not emerged.)

Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice is occasionally cited. However, sadly, the rules, if any, of those deliberative bodies I am in the habit of attending tend to depend only on the whim of the chair.

The usual method of seeking to “kill off” a motion on a topic that is inopportune is to move to Postpone Indefinitely. However, this motion is itself debatable and the debate may go into the merits of the underlying main motion. Therefore, if one wanted to not discuss that motion at all, one could follow the motion to Postpone Indefinitely with a motion for the Previous Question. That would take a two-thirds vote. I fear that the reason it “rarely works” is that this use of Lay on the Table is out of order. The motion to Lay on the Table is available for the purpose of setting aside the pending business to take up a matter of urgency, rather than disposing of a topic without debating it.

I vaguely disagree in that the chair should never use the first person.

I will put the opposite point. On this side of the water, the annual report and accounts of a large corporation do need to get approved by the shareholders. Best to let stock corporations follow stock corporation law, and parliamentary organizations follow RONR.

Where did your board get that policy? How was it passed?

Don't forget that the assembly can by a two-thirds vote Suspend the Rules to elect a new chair for the current meeting.

An organization may set whatever prerequisites it wishes for membership. Nothing in RONR would prevent what is being described, unless the motion contravenes the bylaws somehow. (For example, if the bylaws say that a member whose membership is lapsed by no more than six months need not pay the initiation fee on rejoining, then the executive board motion of November 2013 is out of order.) I would note that someone is either a member or a non-member. These groups are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Since you mention a legal matter, the usual proviso applies that your bylaws and applicable laws supersede RONR. I hope this answers your question; in the event you do find yourself needing further assistance in the future we will be glad to help but you'll find this board works best when you ask your specific question with full details at the start rather than asking a question in very generalized terms and following up with more information.

I suppose I should add that if non-members have been attending board meetings all along, one should probably check whether they do so as of right such as a bylaw permitting them to do so.

In the first instance, the chair has the power to order a disruptive non-member to leave the room on his own initiative. (RONR 11th ed., p. 648, ll. 14-21.) ("Non-member", here, refers to someone who is not a member of the body that is meeting at that moment, so at a board meeting, it means anyone who is not a member of the board.) A motion to exclude all non-members (except absolutely necessary staff, if necessary) is often referred to as a motion to "go into executive session" (RONR 11th ed., p. 645, ll. 1-3). But I don't see a reason why the board cannot just exclude non-members by motion without adopting the secrecy of the executive session, given that the same result can be achieved by going into executive session and then immediately resolving to lift the secrecy attached.