Rob Elsman

I am striking it out. RONR (12th ed.) 63:17.

It will be up to the assembly to decide how to fairly implement what is said in RONR (12th ed.) 63:8. It should be kept in mind that the members of the investigating committee will also be the managers at any trial that might follow, so the committee members would also need to be capable of fulfilling that role fairly. Unless the bylaws provide for something else, the committee members are named by the assembly by majority vote. The person to be investigated does not have "challenges" in the selection, as would be the case in the selection of a jury in a criminal trial. It is not the intention of the authors, I wouldn't think, that the disciplinary procedure be a hatchet job. I understand the authors to be saying that the members of the investigating committee should be able to conduct their business with fairness and equity.

Since it appears from the facts that an appeal from the decision was not raised, the ruling of the chair stands.

It is your rule; you tell us. 😐

No, you will not. It is unrealistic to expect to create a silver purse from a sow's ear in the middle of an election cycle. Any attempt to do so, even one that is motivated by the best of intentions, will be seen, by one faction or another, as an attempt to manipulate the election procedure for the advantage of one candidate over another. Since no discussion, planning or preparation was done over the last winter, the group will be on a forced march to make up for the lost effort in time for next year's elections.

I am betting we will not get this right. This group does not know how to get this right, and it will not know how to get this right at the special meeting. The best you can hope is that something, right or wrong, will be done. Just move on.

These two motions might be related, but they propose two different things. It is quite possible for the first motion to be adopted and the second motion to be rejected. Therefore, they should stand alone and be voted on separately. Similarly, debate on the first motion must be germane to the question whether it is advisable to appropriate the money for whatever; and, debate on the second motion must be germane to the question whether it is advisable to authorize a bond.

The current procedure is acceptable. Lay on the Table would not be in order.

My own guess is that this organization was, in no way, prepared to conduct an election. It was not prepared yesterday; it is not prepared today; and, it will not be prepared tomorrow. Whether or not it will be prepared in the long-range is difficult to predict. Meanwhile, the organization needs to keep functioning, even if things are not "corrected properly". Given these things, I suggest that it is time to move on. All the members need to unite and work together for the sake of the organization.

"Drill" doesn't imply "social" or "cultural" to me. I do not see how RONR (12th ed.) 9:6 is relevant at all.

As far as the common parliamentary law is concerned, any new business that is consistent with the purposes of the society may be brought before the assembly at any regular meeting, provided any required notice has been properly given. Anything to the contrary would be found in the particular rules of the society. The common parliamentary law does not distinguish between one type of regular meeting and another, except for the notion of an annual meeting. Thus, the source of whatever authority the president of this organization might have to change the type of regular meeting from one to another will not be found in the common parliamentary law; rather, it will be found, if it exists, in the organization's particular rules.

The facts that all of these meetings are regularly scheduled meetings leads me to believe that they should all be classified as regular meetings for purposes of the parliamentary law.

"What is said in the locker room stays in the locker room."

Nothing in RONR (12th ed.) indicates to me that the nominating committee should prepare the blank ballot slips. Ordinarily, the secretary prepares slips of paper on which the voter will indicate his vote or votes. There is nothing in that to approve.

Transacting an item of new business out of its assigned place in the established order of business requires the suspension of the rules by a two-thirds vote.

If no announcement of the result of the vote was made, I would assume the motion is still pending, and the chair needs to make the announcement at the next meeting. The secretary must be baffled about what transpired. Heaven knows what the minutes will say. Maybe the minutes will just note that the proceedings were just so goofy that it is impossible to know what happened.

I assume Mr. Novosielski is padding his billable hours, too. 🙂

The chair must have said something. If he announced that the motion was adopted, then it was adopted; if he announced that the motion was rejected, then it was rejected. The fact that a Point of Order was not raised before other motions or speeches were made means that the result, as announced, stands; and, the minutes of the meeting should reflect what was announced.

I'm padding my billable hours. 🙂

This is because the illegal votes are votes of legal voters. Had the votes been cast by illegal voters, they would not have been included in the total of the number of votes cast.

I have no idea what is an "agenda pack". Ordinarily, communications from superior authorities that are of interest to the assembly--especially those that require action--are read by the secretary as part of the secretary's report; or, they may be read by the presiding officer from the chair if they are especially important.

Just to be perfectly clear, when interrupting a speaker in debate is permitted under the rules, the speaker may be interrupted mid-sentence.

I agree, Mr. Novosielski. Well said. 🙂

It is usually the case that the chairman of a committee takes a leading role in the committee's work, whether or not he is the president of the organization. However, when it comes to voting, the chairman has one vote, just like every other member.

The notes are merely workpapers of the committee and need not be approved. There is no rule requiring that these notes be read at a meeting; they are merely for the convenience of the committee.