J. J.

I agree that a point of order would need to be timely. What if the motion were "To suspend the rules and require that debate on each debatable motion shall be limited to one speech of no longer than two minutes. This suspension shall expire at the final adjournment of this session." If the chair were to declare the motion adopted based on a vote of less that than two thirds, would it not require a timely point of order as well? Would you then claim that the motion to suspend the rules in this case only required a majority vote?

Read something I wrote, just about anything.

I agree, but I will say that about a presiding officer who would permit the assembly to believe that as well. There is no problem with the chair putting that motion into "suitable form (4:18)."

Hopefully, but it may be too late after you have agreed to its introduction as a motion creating a special rule. A chair that did that, intentionally, could be accused of misleading the assembly.

The real significance is that the member can pick up their copy of RONR and say, "2:22 says that a special rule can be adopted by a majority of the entire membership. A majority of the entire membership just adopted it." (Keep in mind that I do agree a special meeting could only adopt such rules as properly advertised and that incidental main motion to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session is covered in 15.4.)

The "nomenclature" here is substantive. Further, it would be treated as a proposed "suspension of the rule," not a rule itself.

The chair could require it to be restated as a motion that is in order under 15:4. There are substantive differences between a motion to suspend the rules and a motion to adopt a special rule of order, one of which is the vote needed.

That is how the motion is stated. That may be incorrect, but if so, the chair should rule it out of order.

3-5 does create a special rule of order. It is, "That the following special rule be adopted: Debate on each debatable motion shall be limited to one speech of no longer than two minutes. This rule shall expire at the final adjournment of this session." Perhaps the chair should state it as suspension of the rules, but as made it is clearly a motion to adopt a special rule.

A special rule could do that, however. I have no doubt that an incidental main motion to limit debate for the special meeting would be in order.

Why does the vote total make a difference?

Then why would the answer to Question 3 be yes.

Why is the answer to Question 4 no? I will add that the special rule is not item B or C. I'll add a question, Question 6. At a regular meeting of the society, with the same people present, a member moves the following incidental main motion, "That the following special rule be adopted: Debate on each debatable motion shall be limited to one speech of no longer than two minutes. This rule shall expire at the final adjournment of this session." Question 6. If the motion receives a vote of a majority of the entire membership, but less than a 2/3 vote, is the motion adopted?

The society has a special meeting; special meetings are authorized in the bylaws. More than a quorum is present; in fact more than 90% of the entire is present, but there are absentees. RONR 12 ed. is the parliamentary authority established. A special meeting is called to consider items A, B, and C; proper notice is given for these items only. First situation: At the meeting, while A is being considered, a member moves to lay it on the table, which is adopted. He then moves the adoption of the following incidental main motion, "That the following special rule be adopted: Debate on each debatable motion shall be limited to one speech of no longer than two minutes." 1. Is the motion to adopt the special rule in order? (Note: It will deal with the conduct of such business within this meeting, but it will do so beyond the special meeting as well.) 2. If the answer to Question 1 is no, but the motion is adopted by a majority of the entire membership, but by less than a 2/3 vote, may a point of order be raised at the next regular meeting that the adoption of the rule is null and void due to lack of notice? Second situation: the meeting, while A is being considered, a member moves to lay it on the table, which is adopted. He then moves the adoption of the following incidental main motion, "That the following special rule be adopted: Debate on each debatable motion shall be limited to one speech of no longer than two minutes. This rule shall expire at the final adjournment of this session." 3. Is the motion to adopt the special rule in order? 4. If the answer to Question 3 is yes, and the motion receives a vote of a majority of the entire membership, but less than a 2/3 vote, is the motion adopted? 5. If the answer to Question 4is no, but the motion is adopted by a majority of the entire membership, but by less than a 2/3 vote, may a point of order be raised at the next regular meeting that the adoption of the rule is null and void due to lack of notice?

1. Who elects them? 2. What is the term of board members. Quote the bylaws, exactly.

RONR does not apply outside of a meeting.

Yes, a majority vote with notice is a majority of the votes cast, provided that notice was given. A majority of the entire membership of the board is more than half of the entire number of members of the board.

I mean of the Board, if they ca amend the rule.

I cannot say it does so "expressly" from the snippet. I might looking at the entire document. Also consider a majority of the entire membership of the board.

RONR does note the possibility of a statute authorizing its own override by a bylaw (45:71), so it is possible. However, whether or not a particular statute does that is a legal question. For that, Tomm will to consult an attorney, permitted to practice in that state.

I would say, from this general description, ratification.

A standing committee may be created by a special rule of order. Section 50:14 begins by saying "Unless the bylaws or other governing rules expressly provide that ...[emphasis added]." This clause would clearly permit the term to be expressed in some rule other than the bylaws. That said, I would at least question if this rule "expressly" creates a term of office. It certainly not be determined, one way or the other, from snippets of the rules.

Yes.

Yes, the main motion is voted on separately, whether or not it was successfully amended. An amended motion may be defeated.

My only possible disagreement with my colleagues would be if the board had met, prior to the resignation being withdrawn, and taken steps to fill the vacancy, without formally accepting the resignation. That apparently did not happen.