J. J.

It will ultimately depend on you bylaws, In general, only business mentioned in the call can be conducted.

I know of no circumstance where a private organization (or governmental body) in the US that has an "unwritten constitution." They may have customs.

An affirmative vote can be reconsidered (p. 127, #8).

It the bylaws say that someone may be removed from a position at any time, that individual may be removed from a position at any time.

I agree with Mr. Martin's excellent answer, though I would note these things. 1. Unless it is a punishing given out as a result of a disciplinary process, it is nothing more, nor nothing less, that the formal expression of the opinion of the assembly; it does not express guilt as a result of a trial. The assembly, unless prohibited by its rules, may express its opinion. RONR gives the good example of a motion "to commend Officer George" being amended by striking out the word "commend" and inserting "censure." This is permitted because both motions express an opinion of Office George (p. 137, ll. 20-25). I would add that claim that censure is the "first step" in disciplinary action, does not exist in either the current or two previous editions of RONR. I have seen something similar referenced in a parliamentary authority that is not part of the Robert canon (and quite old). 2. I would note that there is historical precedent for this, in that the Senate censured sitting president Andrew Jackson. After the next election, the Senate rescinded and expunged the censure. 3. While the presiding officer has no inherent authority to cancel a meeting, the bylaws could give him that authority. It is possible that your bylaws grant the presiding officer this ability in your case. Nobody here could say for certain without looking at your bylaws.

Yes, and you can find an example described here: https://www.academia.edu/42254288/RONR_versus_Blizzards I have never heard it called a "ghost meeting," but I rather like the label.

You could also consider disbanding for lack of interest in holding positions.

In this case, assuming that the election was of officers, as soon as they end their term, the breach will no longer be continuing. It will have "healed" of its own accord. That does happen at times. It could be a very long period of time.

If no member ever raises a point of order, then there is nothing for the chair or assembly to rule on.

This can be done by a "proviso." It is a second clause stating that some amendment will not go into effect immediately. See pp. 597-8.

Do your bylaws authorized e-mail voting?

The answer in general is that the president can unilaterally remove the parliamentarian (p. 465, ll. 30-33). It is the president's call on the appointing, though either the board or society would approve any payment when a professional is employed. The exception would be if the assembly has a rule or bylaw modifying this. You have indicated that you have no rule related to this.

I think that where the bylaws refer to a hearing, the rules related to a trial in RONR, specifically, would apply in the absence of a special rule.

First, any charge would have to be treated individually, so that charging the entire board should be ruled out of order (see p. 408, ll. 2-6). If she wishes to charge members in sequence, she may. The "board" is not a member.

I agree that both are not official meetings, but one can produce something that could be ratified and while the other can produce something that could not be. RONR does note that, in some cases, a motion to "accept" or "agree to" can be a original main motion.

No, because is effectively putting it before the assembly by stating the motion, without objection.

Here is my original premise. Does it make any difference if they claim it was an impromptu meeting (which is not a legal meeting) or just sit around and say, "Let's reserve the picnic grounds for the second Saturday in July?" The assembly wishes to approve of this action, and make their own. Would the motion "to adopt (or "agree to") the act taken by the members in reserving the picnic ground." Again that could be a single member, or a group of members, not officers nor part of a committee. That could an original main motion as per p. 224, ll. 13-17. I am wondering if there is this distinction between a motion to "adopt" and a motion to "ratify." I am also interested in the nature of that distinction, if it does exist.

Okay, that kind of explains it. (I was thinking that adopt might be a better form.) Now, would the group of members be responsible for the action, if the assembly ratifies the action? I guess this would lead to my next question. Could the assembly, at a properly called and quorate meeting, adopt the action taken by this group at this impromptu meeting? If so, is that an original main motion?

If this group of members decides to hold an impromptu meeting (without proper notice), and authorize reserving the picnic ground, may the assembly, at a proper meeting, ratify the act of reserving the picnic ground may be ratified? If they may, is that motion to ratify an incidental main motion? I will add that, while this example is hypothetical, the issue has cropped up from time to time.

Note that a parliamentary authority can be established by custom.

Would, in the case where no committee was appointed, this motion to ratify be an original main motion? The assembly took no action prior to this.

The only thing that the committee was instructed to do was investigate and report back; they were not authorized to reserve the picnic grounds. Had the committee reserved it, it could clearly be ratified. Now, if there was never a committee, and it was never before the assembly, what is the mechanism for authorization. What would the motion look like? A motion " that the society reserve the picnic grounds for the second Saturday in July," really does not authorize the action of those members.

It, technically, does not meeting the requirements of a motion to ratify. It would not necessarily be an original main motion. The assembly could have appointed a committee to look into reserving the picnic ground and report back to the assembly. This action is taken by members not on any committee. That might make it an incidental main motion, in that case, because the assembly has dealt with the issue. I think that there are cases where it would be an original main motion.

Some members of the society take action on behalf of the society; they have no authorization to do so, are not a committee or part of one, nor are they officers. For example, claiming to act on behalf of the society, they reserve the picnic grounds of the second Saturday in July. At the next meeting, they inform the assembly. Surprisingly, a majority of the assembly that are present thinks that this is a great idea, and wishes to authorize the action of reserving the picnic grounds. What is the proper method for doing it? I'll say these things that I think would apply: 1. It does not meet the criteria of something that could be ratified (pp. 124-5). 2. The assembly would certainly have the ability to take that the action, i.e. reserving the picnic grounds. 3. I could see some circumstances where the motion could be an original main motion.

I would assume that that an assembly could approve and make legitimate some action taken by groups of members in the past, provided that the approval is done complying with any of the requirements needed to take the action is the first place. In other words, if the assembly would be required to conduct some vote by ballot, it could not approve that action, except by ballot. I am wondering it there would a substantive difference between the motion "that ______ action be approved" and "that _____ action be ratified?"