J. J.

It would be necessary to see you bylaws in full, but unless the board has the authority to suspend its own members, or it constitutes the only assembly within this organization, it cannot suspend a member; the maximum penalty would be to remove a member from the meeting where the disorder occurred (p. 486, ll. 19-25). The suspensions may be null and void.

A "member" is a member of the assembly that is meeting (p. 3, ll. 1-5). If this a board meeting, then under RONR, only the members of the board have a right to participate. There is no requirement, in RONR, that there be a "comment period" for nonmembers. That said, I have no idea what assembly is actually meeting; is it the board or of the town at large? That will depend on applicable statutes and/or charter and bylaws of this town say about this meeting, and, at least by implication, who are the members of the meeting. Further, some jurisdiction require a "public comment" time for public bodies; that is also a matter of applicable statutes and/or charter and bylaws. The first place to look for your answer will be in statute,. That is well beyond the scope of this site.

The chair may permit "knowledgeable or interest members" to speak on a point of order (p. 249, ll. 19-20), without that going into debate. He may also engage in "brief research" in deciding a point of order (p. 250, l. 3). That would include asking you, as a member, about a pending point of order, as that would be "brief research." That certainly would not prohibit you, as a member, from raising a point of order. The chair has a general duty to enforce the rules of order (p. 450. ll. 9-11). In carrying out that duty, in my opinion, he could ask a member how to proceed, if he is unsure; should he choose to do so, he would doing so as part of his duty as the presiding officer. If you were the parliamentarian, you would have a duty to advise the chair on matters of order and to "maintain a position of impartiality (pp. 466-7). As a member, you have no such duty. If you are not the parliamentarian, you have no duty to advise the chair or to be impartial. If the chair should ask you a procedural question, you are not obliged to give him an answer.

I didn't know it was in its third edition. Thank you!

Do the bylaws give the board the authority to suspend members?

The ability to vote can only be limited by disciplinary action or by some action of the bylaws. You will need to explain how this suspension occurred.

It technically would be a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. It requires a majority vote, with notice, a 2/3 vote, or a majority of the entire membership. I would, however, suggest that you speak with your group's attorney about the advisability of trying to change a contract. That is a legal matter, not a parliamentary one.

To agree with the other two posters, there is no requirement for a member to listen to debate on a motion, or be present for debate. He is also free to make a motion that is otherwise in order. The member did not even need to read the transcript to vote on or make a motion.

To be put into the minutes?

If the secretary does not include the names of seconder, the assembly may "correct" that set of minutes to include it. If the assembly instructs the secretary to include the names of seconders, generally, it is no longer a custom. If the secretary does not include the names of seconder in future, and on one objects, the assembly will eventually have a new custom.

A member may decide how to vote on an issue by listening to a recording or reading a transcript of a previously held meeting. He may use any method he chooses to determine how he will vote, including, but not limited to, voting as another member suggests, tossing a coin, consulting a deck of Tarot cards, or by reading comments posted on Internet message boards. A member may be absent during debate on a motion, and show up as the vote is being taken, and still vote, even if he was not present when the motion was put to the assembly by the chair. Unless your bylaws say otherwise, a member cannot vote on a motion decided at the previous meeting. He can only vote when the vote is taken within a meeting, or at a time and place designated by the assembly for voting. I think someplace in there is an answer to you question, but as the others have suggested, please elaborate.

I think that this is a matter of custom, but, as such, it should be continued until the assembly decides to do otherwise. It is the same result, but I would use that different path to get to it.

Nominations and elections are two different things. Unless the bylaws say that only individuals properly nominated may be elected, i.e. making a proper nomination a condition of eligibility, an election would not be voided due to an improper nomination. A violation of the bylaws may create a "breach of a continuing nature." It is subject to a point of order "at any time during the continuance of the breach (p. 251, ll. 3-7, emphasis added)." If this was a breach related solely to the propriety of a nomination, a point of order would have to be raised with the nominations were still out there. Once there has been an election, an improper nomination is no longer before the assembly and any breach has "healed" as it were; that breach is no longer continuing and not subject to a point of order. This applies only when a nomination is not made a condition for election to an office. A point of order could, potentially, have been raised at any point between the time of the improper nomination and the election, which could be several months, as you noted. Once the election happened there are no longer nominations before the assembly; any breach relating solely to nominations, even if it normally a breach of a continuing nature, is no longer continuing and cannot be correction by the chair or the assembly.

The solictor. In municipalities in Pennsylvania the position for an attorney representing a municipality is termed a "solicitor."

We do have solicitors in my state, but not /barristers.

There is no rule against it in RONR. I would suggest that contact your municipality's solicitor.

I'm not certain why he would thing 2011 is a particularly "different time," since it is the same year the 11th edtion of RONR was published. I noted contradictory definitions of votes, plus a lot of gray areas.

It would be either a revison, or a series of strike out and insert amendments.

Your bylaws will supersede RONR. So, while advisable, it is not mandatory that your bylaws follow the order in RONR. In answer to your specific question, I would either that that an a revision or create a series of strike out and inserts.

"If nominated, I will no run. If elected, I will not serve." Even at a meeting, I would take it that a person could be nominated against his wishes. It think it is clear that, with write ins, someone can be elected with his consent. This would assume that the bylaws do not require a person to consent to be nominated, and does not make a nomination a condition of eligibility for elections.

I would use the word "cameral," or "some related to an assembly as an assembly." The ability to spend funds, for example, does not relate to the assembly, as an assembly. A question of privilege to increase the heat in the meeting hall relates to the assembly as an assembly, and would be a "cameral" or intrinsic ability (even though turning up the heat may cost the organization some money). Make sense?

If, for some reason, these officers are not present, the secretary can call the meeting to order, a chairman pro tem can be elected, and the chairman pro tem can conduct the election.

I hate saying "all," but, at least some intrinsic powers can be delegated. An assembly can delegate a trial on a member to a committee.

Thank you.

I follow this dictum: "No motion is dilatory, that the assembly chooses to entertain (no matter how dilatory it really is)." That is a semi-humorous way of saying that, if the majority feels that such a motion is not dilatory, then it is not dilatory, basically by definition. You have hit on the situation where it certainly may not be dilatory. There can be a legitimate, abet political, reason for the motion. I am aware of this being done in church meetings, where the idea of solidarity has value, as you suggest.