J. J.

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.

If the vote was taken at a meeting, it was in order. If this is a small board, when reported, you make speak against it. If this is a larger body (over a dozen or so), you will have to leave the chair to speak against it.

No, it is not. That is where you are running into the problem. This motion may be illegal, but it is not out of order. A procedural rule of law has to with the transaction of business within a meeting. Unless the tax code said, "No motion to do _____ may be adopted," it was likely in order. Even if instructed, the committee could report back that they could draft such a expansion of membership. While your may be good, they acted within the rules, and did not.

First, the motion may be renewed, made again, at a future session. While this ruling has precedential value, it is not binding on a future session (23:10). Second, appointing a committee, even one that may report back an action that, if taken, would not be out of order. If the committee recommended something that is a violation of a procedural rule of law, that recommendation would be out of order. Third, a motion may generally be ruled out of order if it violates a rule of the assembly, including a "procedural rules" existing in law (23:6, d). I would question if what you have described is a procedural rule of law. That does not mean the action is legal, but it does mean that you cannot legitimately rule it out of order.

19:7 refers to the possibility of a member raising a question of privilege, a question of personal privilege, relating to "charges circulated against a member's character." Could these include "charges" in the disciplinary sense? Consider these two situations. 1. A committee has been appointed to investigate Member X. Can Member X address potential charges via a question of privilege? 2. Charges have been adopted, but there is no disciplinary suspension before the trial. Can Member X address the charges via a question of privilege? If the answer is yes in either case, must this occur in executive session.

You might see the same thing where the bylaws prohibit people from voting to a defined "conflict of interest."

The members may wish that loss.

"The parliamentarian shall be a member of the board, retaining all rights, except the right to vote or enter into debate."

"The parliamentarian shall be a member of the board, retaining all rights, except the right to vote."