J. J.

I don't, in the general case, but I think the bylaw could be interpreted that way. I do think that the bylaw, "No rule in these Bylaws many be suspended, unless that rule provides for its own suspension," would work. The advisability of adopting such a bylaw, is a different question.

First, I would note that, as Alexis said, nothing in the description indicates that some action must be stopped when Rescind is moved. It also indicates that an "unexcused part of an order can be rescinded or amended(p. 308, ll 21-23)." That indicates that rescind only could stop an action when the motion to rescind is adopted, not when it is made.

I think it works. It says nothing about if rules other than a bylaw can be suspended; that would default to the parliamentary authority says about other rules. Under 589, #3 , a rule that said, "No bylaw may be suspended," would yield to a clause in the bylaws that said a specific bylaw can be suspended, including something that isn't in the nature of a special rule. The phrase, " Other rules of the society may be suspended" kind of opens the possibility that a standing rule could be adopted to suspend a something in nature of a rule of order.

That can be done, provided that no one objects, I would suggest that the committee chair ask for unanimous consent that they be considered as a whole.

I do not agree, Having adopted RONR, the society is in a position where a rule in the bylaws cannot be suspended, unless that rule: A. Provides for its own suspension. B. Is in the nature of a rule of order. That bylaw removes case B, but it leaves the remainder of the bylaw exists. If there was a bylaw that said, "No one may enter the inner sanctum, except Shmuel and J. J.," and the words "and J. J." are removed, only Shmuel can enter the inner sanctum. That would not say that, everyone else except J. J. could go into the inner sanctum. Also p. 589, #4 would apply. Perhaps an even more succinct way of expressing this would be: "No bylaw may be suspended, unless that bylaw provides for its own suspension."

A rule in the bylaws cannot be suspended, in the normal case, unless the rule is in the nature of a rule of order or the rule provides for its own suspension. The second one seems to only remove the option of suspending a rule in the nature of a rule of order. The line, " Other rules of the society may be suspended if, and in the manner that, their suspension is provided for in the society's parliamentary authority," seems to be superfluous. It merely restates the existing rule.

There are no specific rules in RONR to cover this.

I would go with this: " Any rule in these Bylaws in the nature of a rule of order cannot be suspended, unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension." The group that adopted it uses RONR.

Did the president send out something that said, "The election will be held on [date/time] at [location]?" If the answer to the first question is yes, when did he mail it and when the date of the election?

If this a question on what are general types of things that can void an election, I'd say these: 1. A violation of an absentee right, that could affect the result. 2. A violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, that could affect the result. 3. A violation of a basic right of an individual member, that could affect the result. 4. A violation of the bylaws, unless the bylaw in question is in the nature of a suspendable rule of order (which might encompass one or more of these others). 5. A violation of a procedural rule of law (which might encompass one or more of these others).

You might be able to arrange for translators. I would suggest that exactly how they would would function be included in the rules of debate. I did preside over a meeting in which was conducted in American English and isiZulu.

While I agree that a society is better off relying on a parliamentary authority, a society is free to elevate custom in general above the adopted parliamentary authority. It could choose to do so by establishing a parliamentary authority in the following manner: “The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws, any special rules of order the Society may adopt, and those established customs and usages of the Society.” I am familiar with one legislative body that has such a rule. I would suggest that if the society wishes to retain a custom that varies from RONR, it adopt a special rule or bylaw to that effect. I would also suggest that it would be much more advisable to that the customs be codified into written rules.

Not anymore, though prior editions of the TSC do.

My thought is, that by the letter of the bylaws, the board usurped a role of the assembly. The assembly may ratify that. They may also chose not to and could consider disciplinary action against the board members voting for that. The board, collectively, could due one of three things: 1. Follow. Follow the wishes the assembly and let them pick the auditor, or pick no one. 2. Fight. Fight with the assembly. Appoint the auditor and hope that the assembly comes to its senses, as it were. 3. Flee. Resign from the board. The members of the board have put themselves into the position where it must rely on the assembly to do the right thing. If the assembly does otherwise, the board members have lost. If they are as hostile as you suggest, I would recommend that the board members who voted in favor of hiring the auditor prepare a resignation. Perhaps the thoughts of losing their collective leadership will snap the "morons" into doing the right thing. You may wish to review "Follow, Fight, or Flee," National Parliamentarian, Fourth Quarter, 2013. That is probably not the answer you wanted.

A lot will depend what the bylaws (a statute, if incorporated) say about appointing an auditor. There is no requirement in RONR that an auditor be appointed.

I would take it that rules could not be suspended to permit the board, unilaterally, to rescind the a resignation that becomes effective at a future time. Is that correct?

There are numerous organizations that limit the speech of their members; fraternities are an example. Some political organization do as well. Any organization that had an executive session would limit a member's speech. I would note, even if this would be a violation of the Constitution, it is not a violation of a procedural rule of law, and therefor, not a sufficient ground to rule the action out of order.

If the bylaws grant him that power, yes.

If the body is using it, then the rule on p. 17 applies.

Assuming the House Rules were properly adopted by the assembly, the Governing Board would have full authority to "removed, suspended, or expelled from his office or the <organization>, or from both." I agree with my learned colleague Mr. Mervosh that the ability to fine a member must be placed in the bylaws. The process used for the Governing Board to exercise this authority as explained in the parliamentary authority.

I would not object to the member requesting that the fact she abstained be noted. That is a Request and would require a majority to approve.

A parliamentary authority, or procedural rules may be established by repeated usage (p. 17, ll. 7-10). See also page 19.

One person described it thus: "In short, the general parliamentary law, is a broad, generally applicable, set of rules that apply to all assemblies, while parliamentary procedure refers to those rules dealing with a specific assembly or organization. General parliamentary law is general in nature; it is the broad rules that are generally in effect if the society adopts no conflicting rules." "Common parliamentary law" is synonymous "general parliamentary law." A codification or expression of these rules can be found in parliamentary authorities, like the current edition of RONR. Note: The terms "common parliamentary law" and "general parliamentary law" are not synonymous with the term "common law."

Agreed, however the motion was adopted without debate. It could be such a bad motion, that debate (i.e. the reasons for rescinding), may not be needed.

The society could possibly adopt a higher level rule that could supersede rules in the bylaws.