J. J.

It appears that this rule is similar to a "card" rule. A member would not need to speak to seek recognition. Conversely, under regular rules, there can be a problem with the chair not properly recognizing members.

That could also happen at an in person meeting.

While I agree that this is a potential problem, no one has claimed that this has happened.

It could be. Would adopting a special rule saying that a member, to be recognized, must hold up a color coded card make the body no longer a deliberative assembly? Such a rule would be in order.

This does provide a way to interrupt a speaker, but not by yelling something out.

I would not say that it does. Seeking recognition does not, in itself, require simultaneous aural communication. That type communication would occur as a result of that recognition.

Then it does exist and it is a deliberate assembly in that sense.

Are you suggesting that members should be permitted to speak without recognition, as that seems to be the only way to permit "simultaneous aural communication," at all times.

Most of your questions deal with Vermont law, not RONR. Under RONR, there are no rules covering most of these. Debate can get into the legality of a motion, however, a point of order could only be raised it the motion were to violate a procedural rule of law (23:6 c).

While that is good question, in this case, using the emoji function, all members can see the emoji. That said, I can see a situation where this could occur at an in person meeting. For example, a member would push a green button seeking recognition and a red button seeking to interrupt. A panel in front of the chair would show which member is signaling, but only the chair would see it.

I now have concerns about alternate methods of recognition even in an in person meeting. I would not have a problem with a rule permitting a signaling device to be used for recognition, e.g. a card or some type of light system, in an in person meeting.

I would say, nothing, if the term clause is "or until a successor is elected." If it is "and until" or just had a fixed term, I would say a trial. In the latter case, the bylaw could say "may be removed by motion... ." With the cited bylaw, would you say that any member could demand a secret ballot on a vote to remove?

They would not need to be heard to seek recognition. A rule could be adopted, in an in person meeting, that to seek recognition, a member must hold up a certain colored and/or shaped card. Once the card is raised, the chair recognizes the member. The member then states the motion. That would not change the characteristic of this as a deliberative assembly. In this case, their appears to a de facto rule, that if a member wishes recognition, he signals by typing an emoji. He is then recognized and speaks. That does not change the deliberative assembly characteristic.

While "for cause" is not the issue, I disagree that the clause provides a process for disciplinary action.

They are not recognized.

Wouldn't that be the case if they cannot enter into debate at an in person meeting?

He is already missed.

Actually, I think that the rule you suggested, "no points of order are permitted" is quite effective, though not advisable.

Absent anything else in the bylaws on how to remove an officer, I would say a trial is necessary. The bylaw is silent on how the person is removed; the RONR default (62:16) would be controlling. They bylaws do not "provide otherwise." The assembly could adopt a special rule modifying that.

It would not violate anything in 9:31 any more than saying that someone must be recognized to violates a right to debate (42:2-5). There may be questions relating to recognition (see 25:11).

@Richard BrownIf I understand this correctly, Mr. Honemann is suggesting that motion itself is out of order without regard to a special meeting.

Our very good friend George Mervosh passed away this passed weekend. I just heard from Sandy.

I agree with both Mr. Novosielski and Dr. Kapur. The rule prohibiting suspension is not suspendable, though it could be amended (possibly by less than a 2/3 vote). A rule requiring a 9/10 vote would require a greater than 9/10 vote to suspend.

A quorum must be maintained during the whole meeting.

I would think so, if the board's action can be reversed by the membership meeting.