J. J.

RONR does not mandate "sense." The chair may make this motion, without violating the rules. Whether he should is a political question.

This, however, is not form of punishment. See p. 643, fn.

It is a seven member assembly, so why would the chair be precluded?

Not necessarily (see p. 137, ll. 20-31, foe example). Depending on the situation, it may not be of such urgency to interrupt a pending question (p. 266, #3).

The members (plural) being censured may vote (see p. 407, ll. 21-31). No notice is necessary.

Try it when you have have to be translated into iza-Zulu. (Who says my life isn't interesting?)

“At a general meeting, two thirds (2/3) of voting members present at any general meeting shall constitute a quorum.” If one voting member is present at a general meeting, 2/3 of that member shall constitute a quorum. That seems to be the unambiguous wording of the bylaws. I would suggest you remove the words, "present at any general meeting" or buy a chain saw. You might to make it a fixed number or a lower percentage.

Yes. We, the assembly, will show that we won't even entertain a motion that Mr. D. H. would make!!!

Yes, the motion was not before the assembly (p. 34).

I would say yes, for a several reasons, but I would also note that it is subject to interpretation. The ability to make a motion implies "voice," since motions are normally spoken by the maker. A main motion made by a nonmember would only be subject to a timely point of order, while a nonmember voting would be a continuing breach (though not necessarily invalidating the motion). RONR, does permit some situations where a a nonmember presiding office can make motions (i.e. setting aside the orders of the day, Objection To the Consideration of the Question). I think p. 572 #6 would apply, but it would still be a question of interpretation.

There is one other choice, ratify the action. If the action is not ratified, the president is responsible, personally, for the expenditure.

If that were true, then the motion to limit debate would null and void and the Previous Question would be out of order. There is no right basic right of an individual member to speak.

Dan, you are using my favorite icon.

That would be considered a "small board."

No place does RONR come even close to claiming that. The action taken would not be invalid because of the improper "calling for the question."