J. J.

Yes. Censure, in this instance is a main motion that expresses the opinion of the assembly. It would carry no penalty. (see p. 127, ll. 20-30 for an example)

Why not? An amend that X will come into force on 3/1/20 would effectively mean that such action would not be subject to a point of order after the bylaw is amended.

Unless statute permits you to unilateral authority, your decision is subject to appeal by the members. Why is the committee coming back? If a second permit is needed, it would be a separate motion.

Either would be acceptable.

Yet, RONR says that a society could not do that without bylaw authorization p. 572, ll. 2-4. I would certainly say that, in the absence of a bylaw or statutory provision, a motion "to assess the members _____," would be subject to a point of order, at any point during the continuation of the breach.

My intent of the question, and a the statement, is the opposite. Perhaps this would be clearer. Statute says that the society can do X, unless their bylaws say otherwise. X in this case could to levy an assessment on its members. The society is bound by this statute. The society establishes RONR in its bylaws, using the language on p. 580, but does not include the clause, "... and any statute applicable to this organization that do not authorize the provisions of these bylaws to take precedence." They bylaws do not provide for levying assessments. Would the society be able to do X, e.g. levy an assessment upon its members. (Again, X will not be proxy voting in this example.)

I'll go with the rewording.

The footnote on p. 580 states that it could be desirable to add the clause "and any statute applicable to this organization that do not authorize the provisions of these bylaws to take precedence," to the parliamentary authority clause of the bylaws. Suppose the organization does not do include that clause and that there is a statute that permits the bylaws to supersede statute. Does the lack of the clause permitting RONR to take precedence in such cases mean that RONR could not take precedence? I will exempt proxy voting from my question.

Well, they can ask. If the director is a member of the body meeting, he has a right to be there (unless under disciplinary action). The board, as a body, could ask him to leave, but he would be under no obligation to do so.

How does your bylaw define "events?" Do they necessarily have to be physical ones? You will probably be better off having someone look at your bylaws. You may wish to contact either the National Association of Parliamentarians or the American Institute of Parliamentarians for a referral to a parliamentarian.

Well, first the chair or assembly would have to determine that there was a breach of a continuing nature. Then, if yes, to determine if the breach would have effected the result of the election.

Cumulative vote, in this case, would be if someone wrote the same name on the paper more than once and that counted as more than one vote for that individual. In other if A, B, C, and D were all candidates, and someone wrote B's name three times, it would count as three votes for B. Is that what happened? I would say that, if this happened, and it did not effect the result, the election would still be valid, based on p. 416. In other words, if B won by 20 votes, and had more than majority without the ballot that had B's name written three times, then the election itself would be valid.

That depends on what the document making the member "non-voting ex-officio" says. What does it say; please quote exactly.

This is not a question relating to parliamentary procedure. You may wish to contact an attorney or accountant.

Yes, I am assuming that the member has the floor.

Unless your bylaws permit the meeting to be cancelled, it cannot be. Unless your bylaws say otherwise, you cannot have a Zoom meeting.

In my opinion, yes, provided he still has time. Yes, provided his time has not expired. Yes. The answer would be taken from his time, unless the person he asks want to answer it on his own time. The request must be related to the business at hand (p. 294, ll. 19-23). The time would be taken from the person that is speaking in debate. You might wish to look at "Standing for Interrogation," Parliamentary Journal, January 2017.

What happened to it? That will make a difference.

Won't the bylaws always provide the definition of a member?

No, because it is one member, one vote. Each clan is a member.

Isn't this one member, one vote at least effectively established as a fundamental principle of parliamentary law on p. 407, ll. 1-4?

There could be the question of notice. If someone has given notice that something will be brought up at the final of an assembly's life, it could referred to a special committee, while pending. It then could be taken from the special committee at the first meeting of the assembly, with new members. I agree with posters Zook, Brown, and Elsman. I would have a problem with the chair trying to determine the motive of a motion to refer a motion to a committee. It is not being used to kill a motion, as could Lay on the Table, so it is not improper on the ground that it needs a 2/3 vote. The chair's decision not to permit the assembly to refer this to a special committee is subject to Appeal; I would be hard pressed to find any legitimate reason why the chair's decision should be sustained.

If you bylaws do not permit on-line meets, you cannot have one.

A right to see the letter. Probably not unless the assembly orders it. Could someone share the letter with the one member? Sure.

This is clearly a question of interpreting the bylaws, which must be done by the assembly. Arguably, voting of all agenda items at once does have the effect of limiting debate. Arguably, the vote on each item is still needed. It could be reasonably argued either way. If you feel that voting for all items at the same is not authorized in the bylaws, raise a point of order and prepared to appeal an unfavorable position.