J. J.

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Agreeing with Richard, Joshua, and Guest, I would first note that some motions cannot be rescinded. A motion to "buy the president a gavel" cannot be rescinded one the gavel has been bought, for example.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.

In this case, it would mean that the meeting was properly called. If a group of members got together and said, without authority, "We a having this meeting," it would not be a valid meeting. If the bylaws required 30 days notice for a meeting, and only 10 days notice was given, that would not be a valid meeting.

It would depend on how the rule/bylaw was written. I would treat a rule, "That write-in votes shall not be credited," differently than "Only persons nominated shall be eligible to hold the office of ____."

An officer, while speaking, may decline to yield for a question (p. 295, ll. 9-14). Even if the speaker consents to the interruption, "comments that are not questions should be ruled out of order.

I was merely noting that the minutes could be defamatory because a motion this is defamatory may be included in them.

The society could adopt a resolution that was defamatory,and that would be recorded in the minutes.

Well, if everything is in executive session, nobody outside of the society will know. Further, the society cannot establish legal guilt, or innocence. If the member is kicked out, the society can't stop him from talking.

My experience, which has been vicarious, is just the opposite. In cases where there have been public statements, I have also seen suits filed. An assembly cannot determine criminal guilt and may discipline for matters that are not criminal. The rule protects the member by not publicly accusing him of some perceived wrongdoing. The assembly is protected by not engaging in actions that could constitute libel.

You are the president now. How is the vacancy in the position of vice president filled? It could be possible to for you to resign as president, after the new vice president has been seated. That person will then become president. Perhaps you could then fill the vacancy created in the office of vice president.

Disclosing of what information?

Yes, and the Q & A deals with the specific acts of announcing the vote totals, and the recording of those totals in the minutes. It says nothing about removing the ability to count the vote. The Q & A said, " This committee recognizes that there are certain rights associated with voting by a secret, as opposed to a signed, ballot. No motion can be made that force the disclosure of how any member voted (p. 413, ll. 1-4)." I think that answers Dan's first question. To be clear, and to avoid a straw-man argument, the Q & A deal only with the reading of the vote totals by the tellers, the repeating of those vote totals by the chair, and the recording of those vote totals in the minutes. It is implied that was a count.

I'll disagree only slightly and say that it is up to the society to make the determination.