J. J.

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. 

On 4/17/2024 at 2:16 PM, Guest Andy E said:

I should add that this ruling was challenged and then upheld by a majority vote of the board.  One board member then stated that they were violating RONR 9:31

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). 

On 3/31/2024 at 8:25 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, I understood you to be saying that it is not in order to direct an officer to perform a duty which the bylaws place him under no obligation to perform.  I think this is correct, and a motion directing him to do such a thing would be out of order at any meeting, regular or special.  Apparently, I misunderstood what you were saying.

A while back, I made reference to "a motion directing the secretary to publish a draft of the minutes within a certain period of time".  Although I think such a motion might well be one arising in connection with the transaction of business at a special meeting, it may not be in order for the reason stated above. If so, it could instead be a motion requesting the secretary to publish a draft of the minutes within a certain period of time.

@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. 

On 4/16/2024 at 9:58 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

It is absurd to say that a bylaws provision that states it cannot be suspended can be suspended.

It would take an amendment to strike that sentence, after which other suspendible rules in the nature of rules of order would operate normallyu.

 

 

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. 

1.  Who elects the president? 

2.  What is your quorum? 

On 4/14/2024 at 1:25 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I have no quarrel with this statement, which is different from what was being discussed earlier in this thread.

I don't know what you were discussing then. 

On 4/14/2024 at 10:11 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I apologize for coming late to this party, but it seems to me that 62:12 says that this is an incidental motion to Suspend the Rules.

It does say that. 

I think we are on the same page.

I would not feel that the incidental motion "to suspend the rules and permit the vice president serve as chair during the consideration of the next motion on the order of business" would be dilatory, however.  It could be made before (or with different wording after) the introduction of the next item of business, because it is a new question. 

On 4/13/2024 at 12:59 PM, Atul Kapur said:

 

The point stands that the individual motions should not initially be ruled dilatory.

 

Which "individual motions?"  I think the incidental motion to suspend the rules would not be dilatory, if make in regard to a main motion that is about to  be introduced, even if it were made before each main motion was introduced.  Further, the initial incidental main motion (IMM), "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session and permit the vice president to serve as chair," would be in order.  If it was made, and defeated, prior to the first item of business being introduced, I think it could be reconsidered.  Once that first item of business is disposed of, I would question the renewal of the motion "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session and permit the vice president to serve as chair," could be renewed in that form.  At some point later, I could see a situation where renewal might be possible. 

On 4/12/2024 at 7:36 PM, Atul Kapur said:

 

2) I believe it was you, @J. J., who previously said in an unrelated thread that whether a motion is dilatory depends on the result; if the assembly adopts the motion each time, then they apparently don't find it dilatory.

Just for the record, I have said "No motion is dilatory, that the assembly chooses to entertain (no matter how dilatory it really is)." 

This is not a question of if the assembly finds the question dilatory, but if the chair should rule that way.  Those are two quite different standards. 

On 4/12/2024 at 7:36 PM, Atul Kapur said:

1) That's not the question asked in the OP, which was for one particular motion rather than every subsequent motion individually. 

2) I believe it was you, @J. J., who previously said in an unrelated thread that whether a motion is dilatory depends on the result; if the assembly adopts the motion each time, then they apparently don't find it dilatory.

No, I said that "dilatory" is ultimately the judgement of the majority, not the result. 

That is covered in 38:5 1. 

On 4/12/2024 at 5:29 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I don't see how a motion to suspend the rules on more than one motion, such as motions #36-#40 or for the remainder of the session (Question 1 in the OP), is the same question as a motion to suspend the rules on one particular motion, such as motion #37.

I think that making the same or a similar incidental main motion after each main motion is considered may be dilatory. 

The only difference that I would have is on renewal; I would not see that as generally being a new question.  I could see how an incidental main motion could be made "to suspend the rules and permit the vice president serve as chair during the consideration of motions #36 through #40."

That said, I would agree that an incidental motion "to suspend the rules and permit the vice president serve as chair during the consideration of motion #_____," could be made just prior to each motion being introduced. 

Assume that the motion "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session and permit the vice president to serve as chair"  is defeated. 

May the motion be reconsidered?

When motion #37 is about to be introduce, is it in order for a member to move "to suspend the rules and permit the vice president serve as chair during the consideration of motion #37?"

On 4/11/2024 at 2:24 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Hmm. The vote was tied, so the appropriate thing to do is to vote again, and that's what was done. But calling specific people does not strike me as impartial behavior for the chair.

What if the body recessed and he did it then? 

If there is a tie for an election, the assembly votes again.  Members arriving by that point may vote (45:56).

On 4/11/2024 at 1:22 PM, Joshua Katz said:

But we decided upthread that, in our personal opinions, the parent organization's bylaws did not prohibit the local organization from adopting these rules in its bylaws. I thought one regular disagreed, but he then stated he would testify under oath that he did not. Are you now saying you disagree with that conclusion? 

I think it is unknown, unless we have seen the bylaws in question. 

It does not conflict, but I wanted to state it a bit more strongly. 

On 2/22/2024 at 1:01 PM, Josh Martin said:

In my view, the association is free to adopt proxy voting in its bylaws unless the Federation's rules specifically provide that proxy voting is not permitted for associations, or if proxy voting is prohibited by applicable law for this type of organization.

I agree, but I think that the role of the Federation's relationship with the more local association is key.

Some parent groups do have regulations on what the local can do and could have a bylaw clause prohibiting a local from creating a local bylaw permitting absentee or proxy voting. 

Many of the people here belong to a group that requires local member groups to use the current edition of RONR as its parliamentary authority.  Even if one of these local groups wished to adopt  another authority in its bylaws, it could not.

The society has a several day session. 

1.  At some point, a member moves "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session and permit the vice president to serve as chair."  There will be several different items of business to be considered, including motion #37.  Is that motion, in all cases, an incidental or an incidental main motion? 

2.  That motion fails, but when motion #37 is about to be introduce, a member moves "to suspend the rules and permit the vice president serve as chair during the consideration of motion #37?"  Is that, in all cases, an incidental or an incidental main motion? 

1.  Who elects persons to board positions?

2.  Do the bylaws give the board the authority to remove board members?

3.  Do they specify a method for removing board members?

Generally, absent a bylaw provision, the board cannot remove someone from an elected position.

On 4/8/2024 at 3:54 PM, Jupiter05 said:

Do I just write or call these organizations to ask for a written opinion? Is there a process to follow?

Contact them and they will refer a credentialed parliamentarian.