Rob Elsman

The exceptions I am referring to are found in RONR (12th ed.) 25:7ff, which do not include rules that are "...clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed in the bylaws...", RONR (12th ed.) 2:21. Such unexcepted rules of order that are enshrined in the bylaws are clearly suspendable by a two-thirds vote. If a society is going to create a different species of unsuspendable rules that would otherwise be suspendable (2:21), then using the term of art, rules of order, to describe them is not proper, because rules of order are, with certain exceptions (25:7ff), inherently suspendable. Outside the set of the certain exceptions (25:7ff), no unsuspendabe rule can be properly called a rule of order. The present case raises other very serious difficulties: for example, does even the smallest violation of one of these "unsuspendable rules of order" that results in the adoption of a main motion constitute a continuing breach per the exception found at RONR (12th ed.) 23:6, item (a)? It sure sounds like it. But, this is just silly.

Take a look at RONR (12th ed.) 47:46-56.

The recommendations of committees that are immediately inferior to the general membership assembly are presented to the general membership assembly, not the executive board.

I think I had in mind the suspension of the rules in the House of Representatives to permit what are sometimes called "Christmas tree resolutions", which deal with a variety of subjects in the same way that a Christmas tree is hung with a variety of ornaments. In the House, the handling of these kinds of resolutions is governed by the adoption of a special rule presented by the rules committee. The motion to adopt the recommendation of the rules committee is equivalent to the adoption of a preliminary main motion in an ordinary society. Such a motion always has the effect of suspending the rules (but, in the House, requires only a majority vote for adoption).

Maybe the story, The Little Red Hen, would be of some help.

Dr. Stackpole used to say that societies need not be forever. It may just be that this society has reached its natural end.

One man's spending frivolity is another man's dire need. The deliberative process is used by the assembly to reach a collective judgement on the advisability of the proposed spending.

Rules of order are, with certain exceptions, suspendable by their very nature. A different vocabulary will have to be invented and defined to describe what the original poster is describing as rules of order enshrined in the bylaws that are not suspendable, if such a thing can even exist outside the certain exceptions I have noted. The poster is suggesting a new universe of rules, and I would recommend that the term, rules of order, not be vandalized to describe it.

I agree with Mr. Novosielski. At the point in the order of business when committee reports are presented, the reporting member of the nominating community should present the report without a motion to receive the report. The refusal to open nominations from the floor is a grave abuse of the chair's authority that is not tolerable. Besides, such a refusal is weighty proof that the presiding officer is completely unprepared or unwilling to preside over the nomination and election procedures.

Another alternative is to adopt a preliminary main motion that sets the length and number of speeches that are allowed of each member. Such a main motion requires a two-thirds vote for adoption, since its adoption would have the effect of suspending the rules, as Mr. Honemann has already indicated.

I, too, am so very sorry to hear this. He was just a really great parliamentarian. His contribution to the forum over the years was outstanding. I will miss him.

If secret ballots are used as the method of voting during the election, blank ballots can be used, and voters may vote for their choices by writing in the names. This may result in multiple rounds of voting.

Ordinarily, the secretary of the assembly that is approving the minutes of its meeting is the proper person to sign, submit and read the minutes before the assembly approves them.

Of course. Please read RONR (12th ed.) §41 about the order of business.

My guess is that the correct answer requires an interpretation of the relevant state law, so the assistance of an attorney is likely needed.

But, I think the crux of the question is whether a "an extensive evidentiary trial" is required.

Because "... until the next set of elections..." is so vague, I think I can assure the readers of this topic that the responses will be all over the place. There seems to be some words missing. These might be "...is scheduled" or "...is completed". At any rate, the expiration of the terms of office are not determinable with certainty; and, for this reason, any attempt to answer the question is hopeless.

The problem is that this oppressiveness sounds neither creative nor libertarian. If you all are going to front yourselves as a bunch of creative libertarians, then play the part.

Why does this objector want to invoke a rule that would bind a bunch of creative libertarians?

They are a creative bunch. Let them figure it out.

This is actually the most formally correct thing to do. For the sake of brevity, the rigamarole is usually dispensed with, and the chair proceeds with the obvious outcome as if all 'i's were dotted and the 't's crossed.

You will notice I did not say "benefit"; I actually said "improperly benefit". There is a world of difference between the two. So, I would think that a business arrangement that looks like other, similar such arrangements that are thought of as "arm's length" arrangements would not give rise to a conflict of interest, at least not in my mind.

Being "friends" does not, in itself, cause a conflict of interest. The acid test is whether the board member stands to improperly benefit from his dual roles. If he is double-dealing about something from which he will benefit in ways that other members will not, then he should refrain from exercising his right to vote on the matter. However, the presented facts do not, in my mind, establish a conflict of interest of this kind.

The group is at liberty to determine for itself how to conduct its meetings and to be as silly as it wishes.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood the facts, but, yes, if the chairman of the committee is a member of the board, he may make the necessary motion to adopt the recommendation of the committee presented in the committee's report; but, quite commonly, the presiding officer of the board would otherwise simply assume the necessary motion had been made and would state the question on the assumed motion.