J. J.

There is a case when it could; if the motion is to amend a constitution or bylaws, then it could not be reconsidered.

1. You can amend your constitution. 2. If the person is removed, can he be reappointed?

Yes, or a committee dealing with disciplinary matters. That is why I indicated that context matters. Gary wrote: "Okay, it's perfectly logical. But it's still wrong." Transpower's explanation is not logical. We have two statements in the bylaw: S1. The President shall appoint all committees. S2. The members shall appoint the committee. Transpower said: " Rule 3 for bylaws interpretations, RONR (11th ed.), p. 589, states: 'A general statement or rule is always of less authority than a specific statement or rule and yields to it.' Therefore, I conclude that in your case the president has the power to appoint all committees. " I will add another point. RONR states, in Rule 4, that, "There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it (pp. 590-91)." Is that conclusion correct? Transpower conclusion is that the president has the power to appoint all committees. That is consistent with the bylaw that says "The President shall appoint all committees. (S1.)" It is not consistent "The members shall appoint the committee.(S2.)" We must presume that S2 was placed in those bylaws for a purpose. Now, if Transpower's interpretation was correct, there would be no need for S2. S1 covers it. Therefore, Transpower's theory is not consistent with the rules of interpretation, Rule 4., to be specific. Now, is there an interpretation that can be consistent with S1 and S2? Well, if Rule 1 is the "general statement or rule," and that Rule 2. is the "specific statement or rule," them you get an answer that is consistent with Rule 3 and is consistent with Rule 4. QED. This argument is, in fact, the one that is more logical.

I think that once an assembly goes into executive session, it has completely put the motion to go into executive session into effect. A motion to go out of executive session is a new motion. Usually both are adopted by unanimous consent.

However, that interpretation runs afoul of the second principle of interpretation. If the bylaws mean that the only the president may appoint committees, then the phrase " The members shall appoint the committee," will be rendered absurd. There must be an attempt to read that phrase in harmony with the rule that "The President shall appoint all committees." Based on the information we have to agree with Goodwiller, Brown, Rev, and Honemann. I would be wondering it the bylaw stating that members can appoint a committee applies to a single committee. The president can appoint "all committees," but the members can appoint "the committee," as in this specific committee. The context will be paramount.

Amd possibly in statute.

Speaking only from experience, a professional parliamentarian should give advice, with the permission of the chair outside of the meeting.

No. A rule in the bylaws can only be suspended if it is a rule in the nature of a rule of order or provides for its own suspension (p. 17). A rule of order "relates to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to duties of officers in that connection (p.15)." Eligibility does not relate to the transaction of business. Further, anyone not eligible for a position cannot be "qualified," no matter how well suited for the position. It has nothing to do with the persons ability, only to if he is permitted, under the bylaws, to hold office.

Well. what is the guarantee that members won't toss the notice out with the junk mail? The secretary can only send out the notice, but he cannot require anyone to read it.

If the secretary puts it in the newsletter, and the newsletter goes to everyone, that should be enough. Now, if the put it extremely small font, like the kind used in currency, that is a bit of a difference.

What if the newsletter is sent to every member? The rule does not say that the notice must be sent separately.

Well it does mandate that disciplinary actions be conducted in executive session.

Present in defined being there. If a member leaves the room, he is not present at that moment. The majority could order a roll call, which would include listing what members are absent. Normally, a motion for a roll call would be dilatory, but, in this case, I think there would be a legitimate reason for doing it.

There is no guarantee that if they leave the motion will be adopted. It would be for the sole reason of adopting the motion.

If the vote was counted, the count could be in the minutes.

The member may use his time in debate asking questions of a candidate. The candidate doesn't have to answer.

What do your bylaws list as the term of office. Quote the clause exactly.

A presiding officer can ask for unanimous consent, if no one objects and the vote is not required to be by ballot. A member could request that the members on the losing side to switch their votes, but they certainly are not required to change it.

I do agree that this is an unusual situation. First, unless there is something in the bylaws to the contrary, the board could not suspend these rules at a board meeting. Second, the board could amend or rescind the rule, by a 2/3 vote or a vote of the majority on the board. This is a basic rescission vote. Third, by the same vote, the board could amend the rule to prevent it from being in effect during the convention. In other words, they could amend the rule by adding an amendment that says, "This rule shall not be in effect during the 2017 convention." This technically is not suspending the rule, but, like suspending the rule, it will render it ineffective at the 2017 convention.

What is TP #40?. I would not call incidental when applied to a debatable motion. Also, a Call For the Orders of the Day would end debate of the motion, at least temporarily. Even if there was a time set for a motion, Extend the Limits of Debate could be adopted, as it would effectively suspend the rules. Note that an order of the day can be set aside by a 2/3 vote I would note a motion extending, or reducing, the length of debate would be an incidental main motion.

It would great if it was in the book. I'm not disagreeing.

By that, I mean who takes over those duties.

I wish it was that clear in text. (or, I missed it)

Nothing beyond what is included in the call can be discussed in the meeting, excepting some things related to the conduct of the meeting, e.g. a motion to turn on the air conditioner. Something informal may happen outside of the meeting process. The meeting should authorize board or a committee to approve the minutes, unless the regular meeting is held within the quarterly time perion (which is another example of a motion related to the conduct of a meeting).

You are correct and present company excepted.