J. J.

Considering that I once cited, in 2001, the results of a vote of the Convocation of Canterbury on March 31, 1534, it is quite possible.

I just did. Actually, if I were chairing, I may submit it to the assembly, but if the assembly made the determination with one rule, I would rule the same way on the other. If they determined that the 7 member rule could not be suspended because the committee exists outside of the meeting, for example, I would rule that, for the same reason, only the chair can appoint the members of the committee, and vice versa.

This is where I am at: 1. This rule is a rule in the nature of a rule of order and effectively places a limitation on the motion to commit. Because RONR provides that the chair must name appointments within a meeting, even when he has sole authority to appoint, (50:13 d [last paragraph]) this rule deals with the transaction of business within a meeting. Likewise, the number of members of a committee, must be done within a meeting (13:15), this rule deals with the transaction of business within a meeting. As such both rules could be suspended. OR 2. Because the committee will exist beyond the end of the session, the rule cannot be suspended to appoint more than 7 members. Likewise because the appointments to this committee will exist beyond the end of the session, the rule cannot be suspended to permit someone other than the chair to appoint. In other words, I half agree with @Josh Martin, but I am unsure which half. I do think the logic applied to one rule will apply to the other.

In your answer, if the title of the presiding officer was the "chair" would it make a difference? Conversely, if the title of the officer was President and the rule said, "The president shall appoint all members of special committees. No special committee shall have more than 7 members," would your answer change?

The closest is found in Question 107 in Gen. Robert's work Parliamentary Law. https://archive.org/details/parliamentarylaw00robe/page/452/mode/2up Page 452.

I agree. The minutes are a record of the action, not the action itself (48:1).

Presumably it would be in order for a special rule to limit the size of a committee, i.e. "The chair shall appoint all members of special committees. No special committee shall have more than 7 members." May the assembly suspend this rule to: A. Appoint the committee members directly? B. Name more than 7 members to the special committee?

I am told that it might not be good administrative practice to make the executive director a board member, but it is clearly not prohibited by RONR.

I do not recall seeing "recall election" in any RONR book. For reference for the OP, it might be possible to rescind an election depending on the wording of the bylaws, of course.

It could apply to a specific mechanism under the associations bylaws?

Is the annual meeting in December or before?

How long will the polls be open? How distant are the polling locations from the spot where the votes will be tallied?

Assuming the organization meets at least as often as quarterly.

In such a case, you have 3 basic options: 1. Follow. You can go along with what they want. 2. Fight. You can attempt to block it, but you may face disciplinary action. 3. Flee. Say that you want no part of this and resign. I did not claim they were good basic options.

It is not your call, however. It is up to the assembly.

Or, they may have found new evidence.

Well, the language goes back to the 4th edition. Looking at PL, it seems likely that it was referring to rumors about the member and not to disciplinary charges, but you really have to dig to reach that.

Thank you. I was trying to that from memory.

I was wondering why the word "charges" was being used, since RONR refers to "charges" in terms of disciplinary action.

Wouldn't that depend on the size of the board?

When I describe raising a question of personal privilege, I have generally referred to cases where the member is addressing rumors of some type of conduct, not an investigation by a committee of alleged misconduct or something that has gone to a trial committee. Using "charges" could be interpreted to mean charges in a disciplary action.

See "On the Record," National Parliamentarian, Fourth Quarter 2000, "The Abstention" National Parliamentarian, Second Quarter, 1999, and "Voter Protests," National Parliamentarian, Fourth Quarter, 1998. Interestingly, all three authors are still around, and I've met them in person.

I did notice that the word "charges" is used, which has a specific meaning. It does go back to the 4th edition, but this was the first time I noticed it. In writing about it, I've use the term "rumors," which seems to be the intent in PL.

No. The bylaws of either organization would have to specify that for it to be a conflict. The closest thing in RONR is the advisability of abstaining in cases where the member would have a "personal or pecuniary not in common with other members of the organization (45:4)." Even then the person cannot be compelled to abstain from voting.

In the first case, he is addressing what he thinks are the reasons for the investigating committee. At that point, there are no "charges" in the formal sense. In the second case, he is addressing the actual charges and, possibly, the specifications. In both cases, are they proper questions of personal privilege and would they need to be in executive session? In both cases, he denies the actions.