J. J.

If there was clause under the amendment provision of the bylaws (Article XXVII hypothetically) stating that: Article XXVII These Bylaws, except for Article III, may be amend by a two thirds vote at any meeting provide there has been at least thirty days notice have been given. Article III may not be amended. Article XXVII could be amended to strike out the words "except for Article III" and "Article III may not be amended." If adopted, Article III could be amended at a future point. (I have seen this.) If Article III said, as its last line, "None of the provisions of this Article may be amended." and the assembly were to amend those provisions, I think that a point of order that this violated the bylaws would have to be timely. An amendment does seem to be a rule in the nature of order. I will with the adage that a bylaw that says that it cannot be suspended cannot be suspended, but that is not the case here.

You organizationhas several capable parliame First, I will agree with those stating that a revision is a form of amendment. Second, and to the quoted point, your chapter may have established RONR by custom (p. 19). I believe that is mentioned in Dummies book as well. Finally, and for Gary, you can add another Republican to the list.

As a practical matter, there would be no problem with the body allocating funds to pay the dues of this one member.

I'll attempt to cut to the chase. Even if a nonmember were to make a nomination, or to make some other type of motion, the time to object to it is before it is considered by the assembly (see pp. 250-51). It is a mistake that has to be caught at the time it happened (p. 251 lists exceptions to this). Since you are new RONR, I would suggest looking a pp. 250-51 and pp. 263-65. These usually end up being the answer to a sizable proportion of the questions answered here.

That is the safest course. I do agree with Richard that there could be circumstances where just a plain vanilla main motion would suffice. This is not one of them where it can be used safely.

You should be looking at the cited sections of RONR, especially, pp. 226-7, 4-6.

1. A PDF of the text is attached. 2. Copies may be order through the National Association of Parliamentarians at not cost, IIRC. 3. This was reprinted in Best of NP (2000-07), which is also available from NAP, at a cost. 4. The published text mentions our good friend Gary c. Tesser, as the inspiration. NP 14 RW1.pdf

1. Try pp. 226-7. You may also see "Question of Privilege: Reopening the Windows," National Parliamentarian, third quarter, 2002. Though tied to the tenth edition, it addresses your question.

If I understand correctly, there was one nominee for a partial term.

Well, you could not bring up the smoking motion, so debate might be curtailed. The smokers may have failed to have given notice, and a majority of the entire membership may not be there. The rule could be drafted to make "smoking questions" subject to Objection to the Consideration of the Question, so it would likely be made and rapidly dismissed.

First, it should be "to." I am saying that, if there is only one nominee, X, and write-in votes are not permitted (and not credited), if X gets one vote, X is elected.

Was this election conducted by ballot or roll call? Is the "leadership position" an officer position as defined in the bylaws?

And to you too, good doctor.

It seemed like the optimal solution.

I may not be understanding this correctly, but what would prevent the church from balloting on the partial term first? There could be a ballot tio vote for X, and if write-ins are not credited, X should be elected.

The Treasurer in commission?

Agreed, but perhaps the assembly should have adjourned at that point.

I agree with Hieu's answer. There are two instances were something within the bylaws can be suspended. 1. When the rule provides for its own suspension. 2. When the rule is in the nature of a rule of order.

We also don't know if the time set for adjournment (that might have been reached).

I don't think that could happen. A motion, "To go into executive section to vote on a motion to fire Mr. X," would reveal what will be considered in executive session. Also, I would advise the SDMiller to seek an attorney's, licensed in his state, to review the legality of voting in executive session.

I have to disagree with harper. I think this is something understood by even someone with a "lay knowledge" of both procedure and of the law. About 25 years ago, such a person actually wrote an article on the subject. The individual, at the time, had no certification as a parliamentarian, was not a member of any bar anyplace on the planet, nor had he ever attended law school.

I think that only numbers 5, 6, and 7 are fundamental principles of parliamentary law. That does not mean that some of those others can be suspended. One person noted, "Basically, a fundamental principle of parliamentary is whatever the author or authors of a particular parliamentary authority identify as one."

No, but they could and could cite the same acts he was to be censured for.

Student government in college in 1981. I started with the 1893 edition and quickly graduated to the 1915 edition.

This was my point in post #41. I can move to reopen nominations so that some other member may make a nomination. There is no way for me to know that any other member wants to nominate, nor for the majority to know if there is someone who wants to make an additional nomination. The only time that I could regard this as being even close to improper is if all persons that could be nominated have already been nominated (unlikely, but not impossible).