J. J.

It could be reversed and made an "opt out" option. Everyone is informed that the notices will be sent by e-mail, except for people wanting a hard copy notice, i.e. opt out, along with those that do not provide an e-mail address.

And which may be done without going into the disciplinary process (p. 643, fn.; see also, pp. 344, l. 1-5).

To show that someone did want to discuss the issue and that no other member did.

Formerly, RONR stated that board meeting are to be held in executive session. It no longer does. If you want to keep the items confidential, you would need to establish an executive (secret) session,

There is no mention of a "course proposal" in RONR. While notice one of the methods required to adopt some types of motion, you will have give more details to the situation before we can make that determination.

A motion may be taken off the table under the class of business of the original motion, or under unfinished, general orders, or under new business (pp. 300-1). It could be taken from the table between the elections of other officers, as that would still be under special orders.

You could also lay the election of the vice president on the table, while that is pending.

No, unless the bylaws provide for suspending this clause .

It would be necessary to suspend the rules to do so. The assembly can set whatever time it wishes.

If this conference is a delegate body, a challege to the member being seated could be raised.

That might not be the best way to do it, if this conference is one of delegates.

I know of no rule that nonmembers cannot suggest how the voting members vote on an issue or how they would vote. Also the rules can be suspended to permit non-members to speak in debate, and to make motions. There are two lines there and you may wish to read between them.

When the bylaws authorizes something specifically, other things of the same class are prohibited (pp. 589-90). The bylaws specify who will be a member of this committee. Only members may vote (pp. 3, ll. 1-5; p. 423, ll. 16-22).

I agree with Josh on the first part. The bylaws require that some action take place at a specified meeting, that creates a right for absentees. Any one in the organization may choose not to attend the earlier meetings believes that there will be no election of officers, for the next term, until the election meeting as established in the bylaws (p. 87, ll. 6-11). When pending that event could be postponed. I agree with Dan, however, to the extent that holding an election is different than when that election will go into effect (p. 111, ll. 23-30, and the second footnote). This election would not necessarily go into effect until the time determined in the bylaws.

If you want tight language, I suggest striking, " No other candidates shall be submitted for a vote," and inserting, "Only persons nominated by the nominating committee shall be eligible for election as a Director." If you have a section on qualifications, you might want to put it there. This language would prevent write-in votes and nominations from the floor. This assumes two things: A. That there is no statute requiring you to count write in votes. B. That you want to eliminate write in votes and/or nominations from the floor.

I think the rule could be suspended as well, unless there was some requirement for notice. We don't know what else is in there. I will add that a member not nominated could make it be known that he would be willing to serve, if he is elected with write in votes. I would say that it could be done even if there is a rule that required previous notice for nominations.

In part, I must disagree with my colleague. I agree with him on two points, however. The clause reads, " The nominating committee shall nominate Director candidates who meet the qualifications for Directors and who have submitted an application and information as requested by the nominating committee. No other candidates shall be submitted for a vote." Emphasis added. A nomination is, in essence, is the submission of a name to be elected to a specific position (p. 430, ll. 1-10). Taken at its face value, and in isolation, no candidate, except for those nominated by the committee, can be "submitted," i.e. nominated. The first point of agreement is that this is a question of bylaw interpretation. There could be other parts of the bylaws that would lead me to change that opinion. The context may be much broader than the quote. The second point of agreement is on write ins. Nominations and elections are not the same thing. A submission of a name to be elected to an office is different that casting votes for someone to fill that office. A nomination is similar to a suggestion to fill a blank, it is the submission of the name of a candidate to fill a position. To make that suggestion does not require a vote in the assembly. RONR notes that in ballot or roll call elections, nominations need not be part of the process (p. 430, ll. 17-20). RONR (p. 441-2) also notes that write-in votes in elections by ballot are permitted unless the bylaws say otherwise.; the ability to cast a write in vote is a right of membership. This bylaw clause in no way curtails that right. I would note that if the wording was slightly different, e.g. "No votes for other candidates shall be submitted," would be sufficient to prevent write-ins.

Reluctantly, I have to agree that this does create a breach of a continuing nature (p. 445, ll. 19-20). That said, if the same person was elected at the April meeting, the breach would end. It nay be possible, in theory, to determine in February the name that will be submitted and then elect the person whose was submitted as president. There many be some complex workarounds that night work, but it far easier to amend the bylaws to require elections in February.

I was looking at p. 450, # 9. The "business of the assembly," is not necessarily the "business at hand (p. 293, ll. 29-32)." It certainly, in this situation, would not justify interrupting the speaker, but p. 450 seems to broaden it a bit. Since we don't what the "right" is, that could be applicable. A question, "may associate members vote in the election of officers," which will be held at the next meeting, might fall into that category. A question, "Can associate members enter the tournament," may not be. Anything coming out of an Parliamentary Inquiry would not be binding. It is basically the chair saying, "If you do that, the ruling will be this." In the example, if an associate member votes, a point of order could be raised that the vote is invalid. The chair would rule, usually being subject to appeal. If the associate member is prevented from voting, a point of order could be raised on that. Looking at what Ms. Harlos is asking, I think she wants something "binding" it would be much better to do it by motion; she can correct me if I'm wrong. A motion, "Resolved, that the assembly determines that the rules prohibit associate members from entering the tournament."

Could a question of this type be raised with nothing pending? Am I correct in assuming that a motion determining if a member has a right to do something or not?

The upset member is not correct. The a second means, effectively that more than one member wants to discuss the motion(p. 250, ll. 17-25). Also note that seconds are not required in small boards (p. 488, l. 1).

Could you explain what you mean by "outside of the authority of the Council?" It is something that is beyond the purpose of society, it might be permissible.

Not disagreeing, but that motion would be treated as any motion to adopt an ordinance would be. I suspect that there are public notice requirements.

No, but the parliamentarian could resign at the end of the meeting. That would be appropriate.

If you would consider preferential voting to be a violation of the "One Person, One Vote" FPPL on p. 407, ll. 1-4, that might be another exception, in some cases. At least implicitly, preferential voting can be used to elect non-officers, e.g. delegates, by a special rule of order (p. 426, ll. 7-11). I think someone could make the argument preferential voting doesn't violate an "One Person, One Vote" FPPL and/or that a bylaw is needed to authorize it.