J. J.

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.

The chair should normally ask for nominations from the floor, even if there is a nominating committee (p. 435, ll.9-26).

I could speculate that they don't like RONR because they are not trained in it. Basically, you can tell them that RONR is used by most groups, and is incredibly flexible. It can lead to orderly meetings and will settle most of the questions about rules. Do they want to spend most of the club time arguing about what the rule is, or do they wand to conduct the business of the organization. You can also tell them that there a number books, such as Robert's Rules in Brief, that can help them.

Dutchman, I think you be well advised to contact an attorney familiar with both the statute and the 11th edition of RONR to determine if proxy voting is permitted.. I think this goes beyond the scope of this board. I would note, however, that there at least two reasonable opinions on if proxy voting is permitted.

I'm not sure, based p. 662, ll. 25-31. The text is clear that the accused "duties as an officer," could be suspended, but it is not clear who would exercise them. in anyone, in the officer's stead. Duties of an officer can extend beyond the boundaries of a meeting.

I would note that, if RONR is your parliamentary authority, either your bylaws or applicable statute would have to specifically authorize proxy voting.

Assuming the board has the authority to suspend the president, the first vice president would act as president in that absence (p. 457, ll,34-35).

I would include the possibility of an "illegal vote." A member could answer "maybe" or "doubtful," the latter having a very old precedent. I have seen a member attempt to vote "yes and no."

Agreeing with John and Richard, I would also suggest you speak to an attorney familiar with the statutes and court precedents covering this body. It might be advisable to check to see if the oath could be administered prior to this meeting,

I would take it there could be certain violations that would create a breach of a continuous nature?

Agreeing with Richard, Joshua, and Guest, I would first note that some motions cannot be rescinded. A motion to "buy the president a gavel" cannot be rescinded one the gavel has been bought, for example. You could adopt a special rule making a motion to Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted subject of the motion Objection To the Consideration of the Question. That way, if only a small minority wants to try to rescind the motion, at least 2/3 can shut that down.

And I think that you might be right. If the second meeting is part of the same session, the second motion could not be introduced. Ideally, each meeting should be separate session, in this type of arrangement. I would suggest that you might need to change your bylaws to make this more workable. This article may be of some assistance: http://aipparl.org/pdf/ShiftMeetings.pdf

There are several possible variations. 1. What if, before the vote, a member moved "to suspend the rules that require the amendment to be adopted by a two thirds vote?" What if that motion was subject to a point of order and an appeal at the time? 2. What if, after the adoption of an amendment a member raised a Point of Order that a 2/3 vote was needed, but, after appeal, the Point is determined not well taken? 3. What if someone wants the vote recapitulated, or recalculated (the next meeting being within the quarterly time interval)? What if the meeting is being video taped and video records who stood? Certainly, there were more questions that the could answer, but those were not asked. Personally, I am not for writing expansive answers and trying to establish a global principle. .

Like any question, there can be a number of hypothetical variations, which could change the result. Speaking for myself, I tried not to answer questions that were not asked, in that format. I will concede that the answer might have been different had there been a point of order and/or an appeal. Some of those can be answered by the next parliamentary research editor and his or her associates.

First, I will note that the first line of the answer to Question 49 in incorrect. It should read "The club does not need to use Amend Something Previously Adopted or Rescind." A correction should be published in the next issue. I think that your assumption here is correct. There are any number of questions that Answer 49 did not answer, largely because those questions were not asked. The question here is not if there is any way for the society to fix its mistake. It is, can this mistake be fixed by a non-timely point of order. As I have indicated, PL may not properly describe the current general parliamentary law as it is codified in the current edition of RONR. I have said that in cases where PL supports a position I hold, so it is not a situational answer. In both of the PL Questions 98 and 99, there was a ruling either directly by the chair or the chair acquiesced to a statement from a parliamentarian. That is not the situation given in the question used in the NP. There was no objection in Question 51, of any type, at the time.

I have myself agreeing with George more frequently, and this no exception. If the chair, for example, rules that a motion to Lay on the Table requires a two-thirds vote, and it gets a two-third's vote, should I, as a member, raise a point of order? What if the chair entertains a motion Objection To the Consideration of the Question raised in regard to an incidental main motion, that gets substantially more than a two-thirds vote? I'd say that, as a member there is no obligation to correct the chair. What if the chair rules that those 20 members that have not paid their dues yet, but were not dropped from membership, cannot vote? Yes, even if I'm just a member, I would raise a point of order, even if I were sure that those 20 members would vote the opposite of how I would. I am also mindful of the admonition on p. 250, ll. 11-15.

I'm guessing that do not vote at a meeting. Is that correct.

And, it could create an absentee right that could not be suspended. If there was a properly adopted rule preventing nominations from the floor, this could be a problem.

I do believe that rule could be not suspended, and the "election" of someone by write-in votes would be null and void, but I might not consider saying that the person is "ineligible" to be elected. Looking at Mr. Gerber's response, he might not be saying that either. It might be more of a semantic argument. In addition, there might be several different grounds for why write-ins could not be credited. On the second point, yes, this would create a "deadly" combination if there was a rule against nominations from the floor.