J. J.

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).

Why, if the balloting is conducted within a meeting? Can't the polls be reopened?

And I am not exactly sure that is a wrong assumption. I would take it that it would not dilatory for me to move to reopen nominations to provide another member a chance to make a nomination. There would be no need for me even to have an intent to nominate someone else, correct? I could just think someone else may wish to make an additional nomination, couldn't I?

Dan, I agree with you that nominations can be reopened by majority vote, and would open all nominations up for debate. I also agree that there is no motion to reopen debate. The question that have been raised is if the motion nay be made even though no member wishes to offer a nomination. Your answer is apparently, yes.

I think the scenario being given is that no member wishes to make an additional nomination. The majority may wish to continue debating the merits of the existing nominees. I would agree that the only way to do this is to supend the rules. [i could construct a scenario where everyone eligible for the position has been nominated and it would be dilatory to reopen nominations.]

I think I agree with this. After the results of the first round of voting is announced, without an election, the chair should open the polls, or the assembly should otherwise dispose of that motion to fill the blank in the motion "that ___ be elected." In the case of suggestion to fill a blank in a main motion, wouldn't it work the same way, in regard to debate?

It may be proper, if the member's time had expired or if what he was doing violated decorum.

Well, in strict terms of debate, extending debate would be "dilatory" as well. Postpone Indefinitely serves an additional purpose.

No. A flaw in the nomination process seldom invalidates an election or disqualifies anyone for being elected.

They are interesting, and ever shifting, arguments, though not successful.

Do you doubt that an assembly can express an opinion about anything? Even about someone outside of the assembly? It is plainly stated that censure is an expression of an opinion. It is plainly stated that such a motion may be adopted, without disciplinary action. It is not subjective, but plainly stated.

No, I say that is no suggestion that the are. I think as Mr. Gerber posted, that is the reason RONR said that you can adopt a motion of censure without disciplinary action, quite clearly. (p. 643, fn.). Well, you are quite wrong. RONR deals with how the decision is made, not the advisability or wisdom of the decision itself.

Gary, there is no suggestion that Officer George or the Mayor are under the authority of city council. Constitutional due process does not apply. Officer George would be perfectly free to sue if "commended" for running a drug importation ring. The question if someone can sue is not a procedural question. Well, this is not America but the decision of a society. They, in America, get to make their own decisions. They obviously could be sued for any decision they make, but that decision is not necessarily a violation of any rule of the assembly. You seem to think that RONR says that assembly must make wise decisions; it does not.

In the same example, there is no suggestion that Officer George is under the "jurisdiction" of the council. An organization can, rather obviously, expess an opinion about someone/something that is not under the jurisdiction of the society. Neither is applicable internal to private organization, which is why some exclude people from membership. As noted, if the society wishes to express a negative opinion of Hitler, they may do so without hearing his side of the story.

Censure, like "commend" obviously can be an opinion. It is rather obvious from the line, "An amendment to strike out 'commend' and insert "censure," ... is germane and in order because both deal with the council's opinion of the officer's action. (p. 137, ll. 22-25, emphasis added)." To address each point: The board may express an opinion, it may commend or condemn a member. There is no need for "proof" to form an opinion, no to hear the "other side" of the story. An assembly may express the opinion that Hitler was not a nice person without reading Mein Kampf. Are not applicable unless the assembly one of a federal or state government.

I do not that to be the case. The examples of a main motions includes those that express an opinion (p. 100). A motion that someone be censured expresses an opinion, as can be shown in the case of Officer George. I would not agree. I would agree that such action is not punishment as a result of disciplinary action.

Such censure, IIRC, were pyunishments. As noted, a motion censuring someone need not be punshment. The member cannot be "judged guilty," by a motion to censure.