J. J.

I do agree that the first action did not set a precedent. The board may have simply found that the was enough information to make a decision on the second motion, but not the first. The only potential problem would be if the second motion conflicts with or is "substantially the same question" as the first notion (p. 112, #4).

This! Notice to fill a vacancy requires notice "Unless the bylaws or special rules of order clearly provide otherwise (p. 468, ll. 7-8, emphasis added)." The bylaws state, " At the next regular or special meeting of the Society an election shall be held to fill the vacancy." There is certainly no specific requirement for notice, so the question would be if this clause is clear enough to supersede the clause in RONR. I would err on the side of caution and suggest that there would be notice, but there is only to remove an argument that the election is improper. I also think "Student" has a point. Even if there is a general notice requirement, it might not apply in the specific circumstance. This may an example of a specific requirement for "the next regular or special meeting of the Society," superseding a fixed notice requirement. Again, I would err on the side of caution. I would mote that the chair's ruling, even erring on the side of caution, that either the notice was required or that notice insufficient is clearly subject to appeal.

At the time that Henry M. Robert was an officer, command was less hierarchical. Commanding generals had "councils of war," made up of heir senior commanders. The general would preside, usually using a gavel, and the commanders would vote, at least in some cases. The most famous was a council of war used by Meade after the third day of Gettysburg. This was more than a commander asking for the advice of his subordinates, though the decision was still ultimately with the commanding general.

I agree with Dr. Stackpole. All of them have could have an impact on revenue, but points B and C will almost certainly have greater impact on other things than revenue.

There is no prohibition in RONR. I would suggest you check the bylaws of each group.

Are the recommendations motions?

Yes, that was my point.

I disagree with the level of the rule needed. An assembly could adopt a special rule governing disciplinary procedures and include a mandatory removal clause. The assembly has the authority to expel members, even beyond that session, if the bylaws are silent (p. 644, ll. 5-8). The assembly, though a special rule, could change this process within the meeting context. Unless the chair has been granted the authority to impose such a rule, he cannot. Such a rule, IMO, would have to remove the right of any member to appeal the chair's decision. I would not recommend that such a rule be adopted, but the assembly may adopt a rule like that. I would note that the presiding officer could do exactly what the rule contemplates, and the majority could sustain his position on appeal, thus resulting in the same outcome.

Does your group actually have a rule that says that?

Did the assembly set a time for the polls to close? Were the ballots securely maintained?

I agree, provided that the staff was not appointed by a main motion. The power to remove would exist, but by means of a motion to rescind.

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.