J. J.

I was posting when he did. However, the article also covers electing appropriate officers pro tem. It is difficult for anyone to put all that in a post. Anyhow, if Guest Pete has any questions on the procedure, somebody here can answer them.

I would suggest that use the adjourned meeting method described here . One member can do it and the adjourned meeting can be held "at the call of the president."

I agree with Josh on this. Ratification, in my view, can approve some action taken outside of a meeting and could approve action taken an improperly called meeting. Ratification can be used to "make valid an action already taken that cannot become valid until approved by the assembly (p. 124, ll. 25-28)." In terms of the wording on p. 125, I am wondering if a subgroup within the assembly would be effectively a "subordinate body," since its actions must be approved by the assembly a properly called and quorate meeting. I would note that in some cases where the action could not be ratified a properly called and quorate meeting. If the action required previous notice, such notice would be required in order to ratify.

RONR does not cover "acting" positions, and give scant references to employees.

Just show up. If they ask you to leave say no. If someone makes a motion to kick you out, raise a point of order.

Look up Point of Order and Appeal.

I am not sure that a lockdown would be considered a procedural rule.

Assuming that the House operated under RONR, the situation could not occur as it did. A member might object to unanimous consent, but a member could not require a roll call vote. There was a quorum present.

No. The assembly fully acted on the motion, even it it was not carried out. There was no more that the assembly need to do to adopt the motion.

The best way, IMO, would be the inquorate meeting method. Having one member call it to order, elect temporary officers, as needed (they could be the same person), find that there is no quorum, and adjourn, would be preferable.

Yes, there is a thread with much information. https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/35186-unofficial-faq-electronic-meetings-to-replace-in-person-meetings/ If you have any questions, please start a new thread.

I would note that the board may express its opinion that you should recuse yourself. They cannot make you recuse yourself, even by a unanimous vote.

A potential option would be to meet and set an adjourned meeting prior to May 31st.

I think the current world situation would constitute an unusual circumstance; that is a personal opinion. Looking at the rule, the rule says "The motion and ballot ...." While this a question of bylaw interpretation, a reasonable interpretation is that the motion could be distributed outside of a meeting. Your Senate will have to be the one to make that interpretation. I would suggest that you, informally, have a conference call to discuss this with the members of the Senate.

You should follow your bylaws.

Agreeing completely with my colleague, I would note something similar (but not identical) was suggested by General Robert in his work Parliamentary Law (p. 452, Question 107). It would advisable to contact as many members as possible and ask them if they would support such action.

Under RONR, no. You group may operate under some law hat may require it.

I repeat, you will not have officers when the two years are up.

You will not have officers when the two years are up.

Nothing. If you bylaws say "until their successors are elected," they will continue to hold office until that election.

You rule says, "under the same rules as meetings." That certainly implies that could be debated. I think you need some mechanism for that, and the best one I can come up with is a conference call. Again, it becomes a matter of bylaw interpretation.

That, at least, implies that debate (and secondary motions) could occur via electronic means. While this is a question of bylaw interpretation, it would seem that debate and voting could, reasonably, be viewed as happening via electronic means. You could try a conference call.

Yes, in Parliamentary Law, published in 1923. There is no "emergency provision" expressed. The closest is Question 107, p. 452. https://archive.org/details/parliamentarylaw00robe/page/452/mode/2up/search/mail

No, you bylaws cannot be suspended as a whole, unless the bylaws or applicable statute so provide. Rules that are in the nature of "rules of order" can be suspended within a meeting. Note that holding meetings is not a rule in the nature of a rule of order.

What specifically do your bylaws say?