J. J.

By postponing it without setting a time, the motion would become a general order. It would come up under "Unfinished Business and General Orders." It is possible that the assembly postponed the motion at some point in the order of business prior to reaching that point. I would disagree that it was automatically is postponed until the next meeting.

One question is, was this meeting a "properly called meeting?" A second question is, who gets to make that determination? Neither of those questions though are the ones that need to be determined initially. Let's get an account of what happened before we reach conclusions.

There can be a whole bunch of questions about what constitutes a "properly called meeting," which is primarily a function of bylaws. My first question is, in this case, were all the members present?

Were all voting members of the board present?

Yes. If you are covered by statute, you might want to consult with a lawyer. In some cases.there may be a statutory authorization for you to have "remote" voting.

Parliamentary procedure provides no defense against the will of the majority, at least of the will a majority of the entire membership. I think you are reading toomuch into the role of the rules. No set of rules can protect a society from itself.

The rules are, at least initially, in the control of the majority.

While I agree that this is a rule of order, if the board sends out the notice of meetings, it is a rule protecting absentees and cannot be suspended. The board in this case might be similar to a standing committee that is assigned to receive a certain class of business. It does follow that if all business of certain type can be referred automatically to a committee, that something (or everything) can be submitted to a board. A rule requiring something be sent to a committee, or introduced though a committee could be suspended. I would ask Jacquie if the rule was adopted by the membership or imposed by the board. I would also note that it might be possible to amend the rule.

Did the resignation actually come before the body that can accept resignations?

It violates no rule in RONR.

You are not mistaken.

Well, put me on the nitpicker list. A notice must worn the members of what will be happening. I would consider "disciplinary action against the president," or "removing the president" to be sufficient, the latter permitting lesser penalties.

That was one of the things that I was thinking about in the question. Mr. Martin effectively answered it (for me) before I asked it.

First, I agree completely, in terms of notice. There is something here that isn't mentioned, and can tie into Guest's comment. The motion will have to be stated to become pending. For instance, a singular amendment to strike out that article, for example Article XX, will have to be stated as, "I move to strike out Article XX." If the notice included Article XIX and a the current Article XXI renumbered as Article XX, it is clear that the amendment would remove the current Article XX, and there is sufficient notice to strike out Article XX.

Filing charges would be one of those "necessary measures" to enforce the removal order. The assembly gave the chair the authority to call the police when it voted to remove Mr. Z (with "Mr. D" being an alias).

I agree that suspension is not possible if this is more than one question pending at the time. I was thinking of something a bit different. The rules are suspended to permit each budget to be pending in sequence. Plan A would become pending an open to debate and amendment. Same for Plan B and then Plan C. Only one plan would open for debate and amendment at a time. When they are finished with Plan C, the chair puts the question on Plan A. If Plan A is adopted, the other two plans are dropped. If Plan A is defeated, the assembly moves to Plan B, et cetera. I think the rules could be suspended to permit that, but I don't see too much value in doing so. I agree that a special rule could override the one person one vote rule; I also agree that a special rule of order could be time limited. I also agree that the rules that are subject to suspension may be suspended for the remainder of the session. There does have to be a distinction between the two, which wasn't emphasized. A motion "that no main motion shall be amended," is effectively a motion to suspend the rules for the session, which would take a 2/3 vote. A motion, "that all the budgets plans be permitted to be pending at same time, for the remainder of the meeting," could only be adopted as a special rule of order, and would need a 2/3 vote with notice, or a majority of the entire membership. There can be greater problems as well. The distinction does need to be clearly spelled out.

Definitely not on the 29th.

After being named by the chair, the assembly orders Mr. D to leave the hall for the duration of the meeting. Mr. Z refuses to leave. The chair, fearing a lawsuit, does not wish to appoint a committee to remove the member. He wishes to have the police brought in to remove the member. Question 1: May the chair call the police and direct them to remove the member or does the assembly have to vote to have the police brought in to remove the member? Question 2a: If the chair may do so on his own, may his decision be appealed? Question 2b: If a vote of the assembly is needed, is such a motion debatable? (I would say that if a vote was needed, the chair states the question as, "Should the police be called to remove Mr. Z?")

The resigning treasurer needed permission to read the letter; it should have been objected to at that point. Also, the language was improper to use in speaking. Unless the board orders the text of the letter to be entered into the minutes, the text should be, at most, "[Name] submitted his resignation as Treasurer, which was accepted." Finally, the Board can order a copy be made for the member requesting the letter, but the requester has no right to have a copy. A meeting of the general membership could order a copy be made by a 2/3 vote, a vote of the majority of the entire membership, or by a majority vote with notice.

I think I agree with your position. One question that I have is if the rules could be suspended to permit using filling blanks? Why couldn't someone move one of the budgets and the assembly just use the regular amendment process? One other point, a few have talked about the possibility of no plan getting a majority under filling blanks. I think that could be the case with any option.

Just following up on this, would they be general orders and/or special orders?

The former vice chair, now chair, did effectively resign when called for the election of a new chair (assuming that there was no vice chair). It is possible to resign upon the election of the successor. Notice would have to be given and it would depend what the "policy" was that was suspended. The question is not so much when the term of the officers starts but if this board can fill vacancies. Mary, the chair before Joe, resigns. Joe the former vice chair and now chair, calls the meeting (as so provided in the bylaws) and gives notice that the assembly will elect a new chair. Joe effectively resigns. Pete is elected chair at the May meeting. Pete's term begins when elected ; his term will expire whenever the fiscal year ends. Pete is serving the remainder of Mary's term. When the fiscal year ends, Pete's term will end.

It depends on what powers the board is granted in your bylaws. If it is possible, the motion would be to rescind.

Could you define what a "conceptual review" is?

Just as a matter of history, many things that were covered in Robert's 1923 Parliamentary Law (PL) were incorporated in the 7th edition (1970). PL was said to be "in complete harmony" with the 4th edition (1915).