J. J.

An amendment that makes the adoption of a question equivalent to rejecting it is out of order (12:22 2), but that applies to any form of amendment, note merely substitution.

No, I would have a problem if someone claimed this was actually a motion to rescind (and required a higher vote threshold). Even this motion, as worded, could be a back door method to rescind that motion of 2/1/24 by less than the vote threshold required. (I would note that if some form of a point of order could be raised as an incidental main motion, that would address this.)

12:22 in general.

So, how would you phrase the incidental main motion?

I agree, but I am asking why (or how) you would distinguish been a R/ASPA and a Point of Order.

And how would that not fall under the rules for rescind/amend something previously adopted? 6:23 does not cover it specifically.

No, though they possibly could move to rescind it at the next meeting.

Yes, and no. A nomination could be ruled out of order because the mover is no a member, but only at the time of the nomination. If the point of order was not make at the time, it is too late to raise it (23:6).

The rule requiring that only members can make motion, even suggestions, could be suspended. If a nomination was made by someone not entitled to vote, and there was no timely point of order, the nomination itself could not be challenged at a later point on that ground.

I said sharing it does not violate executive session. A claim could be made that distributing this material disturbs the well-being of the society and charge the member with that (63:24).

Nothing in RONR would prevent it. A separate set of minutes would be created for the executive session. They would be approved in executive session.

The subject of the letter, the accused, was not in the executive session. I question how anyone can claim that the accused could violate an executive session of which he did not attend, and, apparently, had no right to attend. That said, it would be possible to bring an additional charge against the accused, though not for violating executive session in this regard.

I'm not sure that this rule could be suspended. Authorization would have to be given by the parent body.

I disagree. A member can be punished for his actions, if it is felt that the actions "disturbs the well-being" of the society. However, that will involve forming an investigating committee that may recommend charges, a new set of charges. The member could be acquitted on the first set and found guilty on the second.

I am saying that it is not in executive session.

The answer is still the same. The assembly must be in session to have an executive session. The committee can meet in executive session as well. Go back and re-read my answers.

I'm not disagreeing. This actually came up about a fortnight ago.

The matter may reached by using the motion Discharge a Committee (36).

Could the organization adopt special rules of order that apply to the next convention?

Executive session. LOL.

There can be no execution session outside of the session of the assembly. As a consequence, no one can be charged with violating executive session for disclosing a letter sent out in regard to disciplinary action. Nothing in that discussion says anything differently. That said, IMO, the assembly might determine that circulating the letter is conduct which would "disturb its well-being," and be grounds for a new charge (63:24). Note that even if the accused did actually violate executive session, i.e. disclosed something that happened during the trial that was in executive session, a separate process would be needed to investigate and charge the member.

While I agree, there could be other grounds to charging the person who released the letter.

The meeting is covered under executive session, because it is a meeting. An executive session cannot extend to the nail box, letter carrier or mail slot outside of a meeting. The society may consider additional charges for releasing the letter, but not, strictly, a violation of an executive session.

I will add: "Ask a lawyer, able to practice in your jurisdiction and, preferably, familiar with the organization type and the issues involved."

IMO, it does not violate executive session, because this letter was sent outside of the meeting. If this is some violation, separate charges would have to be filed for that.