J. J.

If I'm around for the next one, it will be Amazon.

Still waiting.

Welcome, Alicia. I will go a bit further and say that if a "non-voting member" should make a motion, the motion would be valid if entertained (and otherwise proper). A lot would depend on the specific wording of the bylaws.

First of all, we would the bylaw that establishes a quorum.

I would say that the likely meaning is that a special meeting must be called if ordered by the President, or if ordered by two other Executive Officers, or if requested by four Board Members. That said, the wording is ambiguous enough to require interpretation. That can be done by the ruling by the chair and subject to an appeal. It would however be necessary to be raised within an "attempted" meeting for that ruling to be valid.

If the motion to Adjourn was used, repeatedly and unsuccessfully, in succession, it might be dilatory.

There are multiple questions: 1. Must the managers use all evidence submitted? My answer would be no. The managers are effectively a committee and nothing requires that what the committee considered be shared with the assembly. 2. May the triers consider something that was not presented at the hearing? I find this line controlling, "At the trial, the evidence against the accused officer or member is presented by the managers for the society, and the officer or member has the right to be represented by counsel and to speak and produce witnesses in his own defense(pp. 663-664)." It further states, "A member who votes for a finding of guilt at a trial should be morally convinced, on the basis of the evidence he has heard, that the accused is guilty (p. 688, ll. 16-18, emphasis added)." Based on that, I think that the triers may only consider evidence presented in a trial. In other words, they should not be given evidence that was not presented. If the managers wish to use this information to influence the triers, the must present it at the trial.

I agree that ratification does require the same vote and notice requirement as it would be initially to adopt the proposal.

I think you need to quote the bylaw provision. Under what you posted if there is one member present, he would constitute 2/3 of the members present.

Was the motion adopted?

I have to agree here. Except through disciplinary action or the operation of some bylaw, neither an individual member nor a group of individual members can be deprived of their right to attend the meeting.

Which is more dilatory, in terms of time consumption, the motion to suspend the rules, or the point of order and appeal?

I think the venue would need to accommodate the members, though, in the situation, some might voluntarily choose not to attend.

I would presume that the meeting was quorate, unless a point of order was raised in regard to the lack of a quorum. Such a decision may be subject to appeal. If the assembly determines that there was a quorum present, no additional action need by taken. If the assembly determines that a quorum was not present, then the action would be subject to ratification.

I think that there has been some clarification. I think everyone here has stated that can be circumstances where suspending rule to permit someone who did not vote on the prevailing side to move to reconsider can be dilatory. Emphasis added. In the scenarios that have been discussed, time has passed and/or there is a change in the circumstances.

Unless your bylaws say differently, the officer takes office as soon as elected.

I do not know that there will be an official interpretation.

A straw poll is out of order, because the vote is valid. You cannot have a situation where the vote, if successful, does not take some action. It is only dilatory because it effectively does not exist. Further, it actually defines it as dilatory; there is nothing in the book about reconsider. RONR list the easiest and most common method for reconsideration; that does not preclude other methods. In another example, while a primary or secondary amendment is pending, the rules could be suspended to permit a tertiary amendment or to strike out words one place or insert different words in another place in the primary amendment. That isn't listed but it would be in order under suspension. Further, we do have a list of the type of rules that cannot be suspended. I know of no FPPL that would be violated by suspending the rules to permit someone who did not vote on the prevailing side to move to reconsider. It is not generally a procedural rule of law or a rule in the bylaws. It is not a rule protecting absentees. It is clearly not applicable outside a meeting. I would not call it the right of an individual member (p. 263-4).

In the case of dilatory motions, it is always a matter of opinion. If the assembly, by majority vote, decides that a particular question is not dilatory, it is not dilatory. The chair, as ruling a motion dilatory is, in theory, protecting the assembly from dilatory motions. If the assembly desires to consider a motion, it needs no protection. The rules may be suspended for a number of reasons, not all of which are stated in RONR (the book would have to be several thousand pages long).

Someone may run for two or more positions at the same time, unless the bylaws say otherwise (p. 440, ll. 3-17).

If the member is not a director, yes to both (p. 393, ii. 1-9). The rule applies to members of the body that is meeting, in this case the board of directors. A director should not refer to another director by name, but could to someone by name that is not a director.

I think so. The question of if a motion is dilatory is largely a function of the circumstance and always, ultimately, decided by the majority.

I do agree that if the motion "to suspend the rules to permit someone who voted on the losing side to move to reconsider" was made immediately after the vote it would be dilatory, just as to two motions to lay a pending on the table made in immediate succession would be dilatory. However, with the passage of time, it may not be. Likewise, when the motion "to suspend the rules to permit someone who voted on the losing side to move to reconsider," is not dilatory, it would require a 2/3 vote.

I have no doubt that the motion Lay on the Table cannot be properly used to suppress a main motion, because RONR specifically says that this usage is out of order. I have no doubt that the rules could be suspended to permit Lay on the Table to be used to suppress a main motion. I do not find a compelling reason there that prohibits suspension of the rules to permit someone who did not vote on the prevailing side to move to reconsider the motion. I will say that I do find this a stronger argument than this motion always being dilatory.