J. J.

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.

That bylaw means exactly what it says, the decision of if something violated the bylaws is ultimately determined by that committee. There can be situations, in a committee, for example, where the chair, and upon appeal the committee, can make determination, but that would be subject to the ultimate determination of the judicial committee. Note that if such a clause creating a judicial committee did not exist, this ability will be granted to the assembly. That is more of a bylaw interpretation question. ETA: I do not see any disagreement that it should be the bylaw should be given more weight, in fact all weight. when it conflicts with a provision of RONR.

A CD rom is available https://robertsrules.com/books/newly-revised-12th-edition-cd-rom/ I believe it is searchable.

Does some rule or bylaw require a "posted agenda?" RONR does not.

I would take it that you would except something expunged?

There are many cases where you cannot use the information obtained in an executive outside of that session. That is not the case with a committee that met in open session.

I am not suggesting that the observer (assembly member) can claim "Committee Member A made Argument 1 against the proposal." I am suggesting that the observer can make Argument 1 during debate in the meeting of the assembly. That is no allusion to anything.

To follow up a bit on this. This is still a special convention. Within the convention rules, the rule establishing a standing committee is included. Under the society's bylaws, there is no specification of standing committees in the bylaws and 50:8 and 50:9 apply. No notice is given of the rule. My questions are: 1. May a special rule of order, included in convention standing rules, that has some application outside of a meeting, be adopted without notice at a special meeting. 2. May a special rule, that has application outside of a meeting, be properly included within convention standing rules. That is, even at a regular meeting, would (or should) the assembly have to adopt the rule of order separately.

Non committee members can sit in the meeting, and repeat the arguments (pro/con) that they heard.

Well, if that is the case and there is no rule prohibiting it, they can go into executive session. Without that, there is no confidentiality.

I disagree a bit. A special rule could be adopted to elect delegates by plurality (44:11).

The question is, however, if this would be different due to the election being conducted by a plurality. I see no difference based on that.

I think that each member could still vote for up to 100 individuals. Plurality deals with the number of votes needed to elect, not the numbers of votes that may be cast by a member.

The society permits a specific number of local units to call a special convention. The notice covers the items of business to be considered, but does not specify convention standing rules as one of those items. May the convention adopt convention standing rules?

Actually, it seems to depend on a situation not applicable in this case.

I would have taken Mr. Gerber's initial post to be just that (if expressed a bit tongue in cheek). A motion "to suspend the rules and prohibit amendment of the main motion," would have the effect of limiting debate. Motions to amend are debatable when the motion to which they are applied are debatable. If amendments are prohibited, then the ability to debate them is also prohibited.

As there is no requirement for notice, the rule is one that could be suspended. Further the violation of it would require a timely point of order.

That is why I said, "to the extent." A rule requiring some other subordinate body to originate a main motion is a rule in the nature of a rule of order. The part of the rule stating that a motion be "considered and shaped, first, by the board of directors," is suspendable. A requirement, hypothetical at this point, that the board send out notice, is not suspendable.

The motion would just be to go into executive session. You would not adjourn to executive session as adjourning ends the meeting. You do not need to announce the reason for executive session, unless your own rules require it.

To the extent that rule required something to be done prior to the introduction of business, the rule is a rule in the nature of a rule of order. A motion to, "suspend the rules and introduce a motion that was not 'considered and shaped, first, by the board of directors'" would be in order, IMO. It deals with introducing business within a meeting.

Then it wouldn't be an "earlier adjournment." This is the same motion.

If it is an "earlier adjournment," could it be privileged, at least if raised when something else is pending (which would violate 21:3 #2).