TheGrandRascal

To J.J.: The answer to that is obviously either a "yes" or a "no," so based upon you own opinions you should be able to privide a followup response for either of these two possibilities. In other words, you can readily answer your own question: "If special meetings ARE permitted, then I would say _________." "If special meetings ARE NOT permitted, then my response would be _________."

I had something like that in mind... That, plus the fact that in many corporate meetings it is often customary to waive meeting notice when all members are present. N.B., I have quoted laser158689 in full, in order to avoid any possibility of making him or her appear to say anything that he or she did not say.

To Richard Brow (and Josh Martin): Please note that I isolate YOUR quote above, only because it is the specific point I wish to reply to. I personally consider it wasteful of space and confusing to include an entire quotation when much of that quotation is not directly germane to the point I wish to discuss. This was my attitude with Mr.Martin's response as well. It was never my intention to misquote him or to make it apoear he said something he did not. If, by trimning and quoting only the immediate text I am answering has caused confusion, or the disparagement of Mr. Martin, I most humbly and sincerely apologize. My only intention was to point out that, as originally worded, the hypothetical rule that Mr. Martin provided was flawed; and to suggest an improved version. It was not my intent to miquote him. I only isolated the theoretical rule because that was the focus of my reply. I regret that my doing so has caused confusion. Since my preferred procedure is objectionable, I shall hanceforth refrain from abbreviating quotes for relevance, and will quote them in their entirety. I trust that this will be satisfactory.

You were a tad hasty with that wording: What does "all members of the assembly" mean in this context? The correct wording would be, "If all enrolled members are present at the same location at the same time, they may agree to spontsneously hold a special meeting, withot notice." Again, that is NOT a rule I would recommend... but it would be interesting to see!

Well, obviously they wouldn't care, even if I do! 😮

...To which they would say (if they existed): "Rot." 🤔

Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that they have all of these, and that their Parliamentary Authority is RONR-12. I must remind you all of a quotation I cannot now find, but distinctly remember (though perhaps not in these precise words): "Rules exist for the protection of the minority, and need not be strictly enforced where there is no minority to protect." The rules about meeting notice protect absentees; but in this case, there are none. The rule should therefore be waivable.

No, I'm not referring to a special meeting, which is called in accordance with particular rules. I'm referring to a completely and totally impromtu meeting. Imagine there's a small social group of, say, six members, who consider themselves a Club. (They have -- and need -- very few rules. But one of these sets a regular meeting time.) Well, one day, in between their regular meetings, it just so happens that all six of them turn up at the local library at the same time! Hmmm! They have a plenum -- there are no absentees -- and they certainly have a quorum, so couldn't they waive any notice requirement and simply "declare themselves a meeting"? What would such a meeting be competent to consider? Only unfinished business? Only new business? And what about that motion that at their previous meeting was "postponed to our next regular meeting" (which this one most definitely ain't)? It's definitely not a procedure I would recommend for any but the tiniest and non-serious of groups owing to the potential for legal troubles, but I am interested to know if such an "impromptu meeting" is even at least theoretically possible... Thoughts?

Hmmm. So, a provision in the bylaws that "the President shall preside at all meetings" is a Special Rule of Order (according to footnote 5, to the second sentence in 62:12, RONR 12th, p.617), but a provision that "the President shall appoint the chair of all special committees" is not a Special Rule of Order? Now how did we arrive at that strange distinction, I should like to know...???

Excuse me and PMFJI, but do please remember that most Main Motions do not require previous notice! Unless we happen to be specifically discussing referral of a motion that does require previous notice, it would appear to me that Mr. Elsman's reasoning here is inapplicable.

Standard Disclaimer -- IANAL -- but my understanding, is that the singular does NOT include the plural, but that the plural DOES include the singular.

At variance with RONR? No question. But badly written? A rule is not badly written, good Sir, simply because it happens to differ from RONR! In fact, "badly written" is a matter of opinion -- and not mine. I happen to think both differences to be at least minimally appropriate: 1. In an assembly so small (tiny, even -- nine members!?) I wouldn't expect (or want) any motion to need a second. (For that matter, under the rules for small boards and committees, this is entirely valid procedure, even within RONR!) 2. In an assembly that teensy, a tie vote overturning the chair is probably more aporopriate; and in any case, it's their own rule.

Personally, I consider the motion to Postpone Indefinitely to be one of the most obnoxious motions imaginable: 1. It forces a discussion-weary assembly into another entire round of debate. 2. It causes the majority wishing to adopt a measure to be forced to vote for it twice -- once by voting down the Indefinite Postponement, and then again to adopt the actual main motion itself! 3. And, it accomplishes all of this, NOT by being adopted (which would be bad enough yet acceptable, since the assembly would have voted for it), but merely by being moved and seconded! Thus, it matters not that, in an Assembly of 100 members, that 98 of them wish to adopt the motion and move on -- they are held hostage to the parliamentary maneuvering of the remaining two members! I consider it highly noteworthy that not all parliamentary authorities include the motion to Postpone Indefinitely; there are some that omit it altogether. I only wish that RONR was one of them.

O.K., so supposing a rule within the bylaws is in the nature of a rule of order, and concludes with, "This rule may not be suspended." What then?

RONR-12th 2:23: "Rules that have any application outside a meeting context... cannot be suspended." PART ONE: Hmmm. Why so absolute? Must we infer that any appended "suspension clause" is therefore null and void? Consider the following hypothetical rule: "Resolved, That members shall park their cars in the parking lot and not on the street fronting the meeting hall. Any cars so parked will be towed. This rule may be suspended, in a particular instance and for the benefit of a particular member, by a two-thirds vote." The parking of cars is most definitely outside a meeting context! But at the same time, the Assembly might wish to make an exception in the case of a member with good reason to "mis-park." Are we then to conclude that the clause embodied in this rule's last sentence is invalid? PART TWO: I also ponder the opposite case: can an otherwise suspendable rule, declare itself to be unsuspendable? Consider the following hypothetical bylaw provision: "The President shall appoint the chairmen and members of all standing committees. This rule may not be suspended." As unwise as such a rule is (I myself would most VIGOROUSLY oppose ANY inclusion of that last sentence! Yeesh!), would such a clause actually be binding?