J. J.

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.

A bylaw can overrule anything else that the assembly can adopt. This includes any FPPL. At least in the case of the "one motion immediately pending at a time," FPPL, it would be possible, though usually not advisable, to supersede that with a special rule of order. A consent calendar sort of does that, where a number of motions are adopted simultaneously. I have read that the US Senate has a rule that permits more than one main motion to be pending at the same time, but I am not certain that the motions are actually pending in the sense that RONR uses the term pending. A special rule of order could be adopted to require a certain number of members to support a point of order in order for it to be raised. With the possible exception of very large assemblies, I would not recommend its adoption.

This sounds like something akin to a public election of a representative body. A student senate type thing? The voters, as such would not be members of the body in that case. If so, that body may be able to establish rules, that do not conflict with the bylaws. If this is the case, however, it will be well beyond the scope of this board, because much of it would be bylaw based.

When the bylaws establish criteria for some thing, additional criteria for that thing are not permitted (pp. 589-90, 4). If this club chooses chooses to establish addition criteria, it must amend its bylaws to do so. The only exception would be if the bylaws grant the membership meeting, or some other body, e.g. the board, the ability to create additional criteria.

Ultimately, that is done through disciplinary action.

He can remain on the ballot, unless your bylaws say otherwise.

I agree.

I know. That is why I was asking a question.

Does requiring some rule to be in the bylaws to be effective make it a fundamental principle?

You did, but I'm trying to make sure that Nancy understands that.

This is from National Parliamentarian, Second Quarter 2013. It is one view. It does have implications for different cultures, especially in Iranian culture and politics. Fundamental Problems.pdf

The question is for the period, "After the formal meeting... ." "General Good and Welfare" takes place during the meeting.

If it is outside of the meeting, it is called something that happened outside the meeting. There is no special term.

I sort of disagree. The meeting area is in control of the assembly. A person putting a recorder out on the table, could easily lead tho the chair finding it improper and ordering it removed (which would be appealable). Likewise a member can raise this as a question of privilege. I think it is a little more that should.

I think that a special rule could be adopted to permit the majority (or some higher number) to order the reading waived. Without that, and member can require it. You are spot on with the part I have bolded. It is not required in RONR, but it is an exceptionally good idea.

One man's "aggressive anti-collegial action," may another man's "dilatory." Also, he could have thought that Lay on the Table was a method to kill a motion.