Rob Elsman

Choosing among alternative main motions a la carte, so to speak, violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion can be pending at a time. RONR (12th ed.) 5:4.

Well, it's their rule; let them tell us. 😑

Without a motion having been made, a member has no right to engage in debate. The interval of time within which to make the motion, Reconsider, has expired, so Reconsider is not in order. If the "process" is too far along (and I cannot be the judge of this on the basis of the information provided), the motion, Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, is also not in order. It may well be that the member is out of luck as well as being out of order.

An ordinary main motion that conflicts with a bylaw is not in order, and the adoption of such a main motion is null and void. I will leave it to the original poster to determine whether either of these cases apply to this particular situation. To be frank, I do not know enough about the delegation of authority to the board to be able to ascertain whether the board exceeded the scope of its authority or not.

The only persons who are duty-bound not to disclose the proceedings in executive session are the members of the body (in this case, the board) and any necessary staff who were present. As I understand the facts, the accused is neither a member of the board nor a member of the board's necessary staff, so the obligation not to disclose does not apply to him. Whatever expectation the accused might have had that his good name would be protected seems to have been waived by the accused himself when he voluntarily distributed copies of the letter to other members of the organization.

I guess we would need to know the nature of the particular "board policy" in question to know how to intelligently discuss this further.

Do the organization's bylaws specifically authorize the executive board to handle "complaints" and "charges"?

With respect to public bodies, it quite often happens that the bodies adopts rules for some kind of period for public comment, usually at the end of the meeting. Where this is the case, there should be adequate rules adopted by the body to regulate how such a period is going to work. RONR (12th ed.) does not have these kinds of rules.

I do not especially recommend adopting an amendment of the bylaws to accomplish what is desired. The better way, I think, would be for the general membership assembly to adopt a special rule of order, applicable only to the executive board. The vote required to adopt a special rule of order is a vote of the entire membership or a two-thirds vote only if previous notice has been given. I agree with Mr. Honemann that it is unlikely that the bylaws of the organization mention the board having the authority to adopt its own, permanent special rules of order. Not only would the adoption of such a rule by the executive board be null and void, it would also be an act of usurpation of powers rightfully belonging exclusively to its superior (i.e., insubordination), for which appropriate punishment can be inflicted upon those who are guilty of the act.

I am unclear about what body the chairman is the presiding officer. The chairman of the association's executive board?

Well, of course, nobody would execute a semi-baked idea that violates the copyright holder's thoroughly baked intellectual property rights.

The ideal quorum for your organization should be the product of a thorough investigation by a committee; a comprehensive deliberation and recommendation by the committee; and the deliberative process in the assembly that has the authority to amend the bylaws. The quorum should not be set so high that it materially interferes with the holding of meetings; nevertheless, it should not be set so low that it allows the assembly to take action on the basis of an unrepresentative minority capable of doing the organization harm.

Thanks for the word-bomb, but it has become quite clear that one cannot make a silver purse out of this sow's ear.

I think what was meant is that a count had to be ordered to make sure there was, or there was not, a quorum.

Actually, the chair should say the name or description of the committee when recognizing the reporting member for the purpose of presenting the committee's report: "The chair recognizes Mr. Adams, chairman of our Finance Committee, to present the committee's report."

If consideration by paragraph is not working out well for the assembly, the best solution is for a member to move to consider as a whole. The characteristics of this motion are the same. I do not understand the use of Suspend the Rules in this situation. If this motion would be able to garner the necessary two-thirds vote, then it is likely that the assembly is also supportive of the motion, Previous Question, to bring the assembly to an immediate vote.

Thank you. I think the gist of your question has more to do with compliance with the state law or regulations than anything in RONR (12th ed.), so you need to take this question up with an attorney.

Well, then, the correct answer is, "On behalf of the committee, I move the adoption of the recommendations contained in the report just read."

Does your state require this kind of posting?

The tail wags the dog in this foolish and pitiable association.

What body is the committee's immediate parent body?

It might be worth saying that the executive board does not conduct the annual meeting of the general membership. Other than making a report to the assembly on the board's activities during the last year, the board has nothing whatsoever to say about whether there is or is not a quorum; to when or where the assembly shall adjourn; or the transaction of business. Unless the agenda circulated by the board is adopted during the annual meeting, it is not binding upon the general membership assembly, and the board has no power to be a "gatekeeper" as to the business that the general membership assembly wishes to transact.

My guess is that the election of officers, required by the bylaws to be held at the annual meeting, must be taken up with the special orders, regardless what appears or does not appear on the agenda circulated by the board. If the president does not call up the elections at the proper time, any member of the general membership assembly can interrupt and make a Call for the Orders of the Day. See RONR (12th ed.) §18.

It isn't ever the case? Are you sure?

I think you are on your own, since RONR (12th ed.) does not require the call of a regular meeting to include the "...purpose or purposes for which the meeting is called..." You all got yourselves into this bind; now, you all get to get yourselves out. 🪠