J. J.

How about "Because?" (Personally, I like the formality of "Whereas," if there is going to be a preamble.)

Agreeing with both my colleagues, if the bylaws would say something along the lines that "only those people nominated shall be eligible for election," that an nomination would be required. That would create a condition of eligibility. In this particular case, there was a nomination, so even that rule would not apply.

I agree with Mr. Martin and will note two things. 1. If this was a ballot or roll call vote, nominations are not strictly needed (p. 430, ll. 17-20). 2. It would be possible to suspend the rules to permit a non-member to make a nomination. RONR notes that "the rules cannot be suspended so as to give the right to vote to a nonmember p. 263, ll. 22-23)," there is no prohibition on suspending the rules to permit a nonmember to make a motion.

I will with my colleagues Mr. Brown and Dr. Kapur. This is not an election for office and those rules do not apply. I will, however, note the nature of an endorsement, in the general case. It is a formal recommendation to vote for someone for an office. When there is only one office to be filled, the voter is being asked to to effectively cast an illegal vote of more candidates than there are offices. The group endorsing may not wish to do that. If there was a desire to state that this group would find some candidates acceptable for a certain office and other candidates not acceptable, that would be a solution, Some groups in my state say "qualified" and "not qualified." There may be many candidates for an office that could be found to be "qualified."

It each meeting is a different session, then it could be made again, renewed, at the next meeting,

How does it exceed the notice?

I think it would be in order. The question is if there should by an official, not just it it should be the banana.

All of her rights of membership membership may be suspended, but a member without rights is still a member.

You must attempt to fill the vacancy. The only way to do away with the office is to amend the bylaws.

A person may be a member, but not a member in good standing.

I think I am on same page as Mr. Martin. If someone has been suspended from membership, it is a suspension of all of their rights of membership, excluding disciplinary action. I would not make the argument, for example, that the assembly could not further discipline a suspended member, and expel that member, if some new offense was discovered; the due process right of the suspended member remains even in this case. I would further note that the some of the various rights of membership can be suspended, while others remain intact (p. 662, ll. 25-31). A person may not, at some point in time, be a member in good standing, but still be a member.

Unless your bylaws say otherwise, she would remain under a disciplinary action even if she paid her dues. Do the bylaws state that a member is dropped from membership if the don't pay their dues?

I am hugely sad to hear of Dr. Stackpole's passing. Thanks for posting it.

If I understand the issue correctly, three members are requesting that how they voted be recorded in the minutes. That is a question of privilege and the granting of that is within the control of the majority. I agree with Messrs. Martin, Brown, Kaptur, Mervosh and Lages. I would also refer those interested to the article "On the Record, " National Parliamentarian, Fourth Quarter 2000, which gives greater detail on the process.

The reason Objection To the Consideration of the Question is out of order is that the society has already been adopted your governing documents. That is something that is now not original to the organization. You are amending something previously adopted.

Concurring with my colleagues, you might offer amendments, within scope, to make the motions less likely to be adopted. Further, if it should be adopted you might be able to begin the process to remove the amendment from the bylaws.

This to apply to "all meetings of the Corporation." This would not apply to clubs.

I think that, unless write-in votes are prohibited in the bylaws, it would be out order to conduct the election in any manner that would have the effect of prohibiting write-in votes. For example, a ballot on the motion "That A be elected," no voter could properly cast a write-in vote. He could vote for or against A only. As each member has a right to cast a write-in vote on a ballot unless the bylaws say otherwise (pp. 441-2) this rule could not be suspended and its violation would would cause the election to be null and void. It would, however, be possible, to vote for each seat separately, taking the vote each seat on a separate ballot. The rules would need to be suspended (2/3 vote). I frankly see no advantage to doing that, and it would likely take more time to complete the election.

Agreed, but the most obvious case is if the motion has been fully carried out. A motion to rescind the motion, "That a new desk be purchased for the secretary," would be out of order if the desk had already been purchased and could not be returned. IMO, an appeal of the chair's ruling that the motion to rescind was out of order in this case, would be out of order.

There is no requirement to have a board in RONR, though it is recommended.

No, but after 10 days notice it can be amended within scope of notice.

Unless you require the board to approve the specific wording of amendment, it can be amended within scope of notice. For example, the bylaws set some fee at $100; the amendment is to increase that to $200. That motion could be amended for some amount greater than $100 but less than $200. If the proposal was amended within the scope of notice, e.g. $150, it could be adopted and no further noice would be needed.

One major difference is that a committee of the whole is a committee, while a quasi committee of the whole is not. A more detailed description is here, starting on page 19: https://issuu.com/parliamentarians/docs/nap_np_78-4-www

That could work. Thank you.

General parliamentary law is not "law" in the sense that it is created by statute or court precedent. It has been described this way: " ''[P]arliamentary law,' is, broadly, those rules and customs that, originated in the English parliament, that dealt with the transaction of business, but that further developed due to legislative procedure in America. This parliamentary law is a broad set of rules, which when written and adopted, become “rules of order (RONR, p. xxix).' RONR itself is a codification of these rules." Parliamentary procedure is " ''these 'rules of order' together with whatever additional rules of order the society may adopt (RONR, p. xxx).' In that definition, it would include bylaw provisions and any applicable statute that would deal with the transaction of business in meeting or with the duties of officers within a meeting. Basically, it is the procedural rules that govern a specific assembly. Parliamentary procedure, which would probably include large elements of parliamentary law, is much narrower."1 In this forum, people often post about real situations where the answer is unique to that assembly. That is, by its nature, is a question about parliamentary procedure. As noted in the article, "Parliamentary law expresses the general and theoretical rule, while parliamentary practice expresses the specific rule for the specific assembly." Just today, I came across a discussion of the general parliamentary law in the debate of the US House on January 29, 1890 ( Volume XXI, 1889 p. 949), beginning with a Representative McCreary stating, "I deny your right, Mr. Speaker, to count me as present, and I desire to read from the parliamentary law on that subject." The Speaker (Reed) famously replied, "The Chair is making a statement of the fact that the gentleman from Kentucky is present. Does he deny it?"2 It continues on from there though at least February 1, 1890. 1National Parliamentarian, (Vol. 79, No. 1), pp. 12-13 https://issuu.com/parliamentarians/docs/nap_20np_2079-1-wwwr 2It occurs to me that, as I am responding at 11:14 PM on New Years Eve, I need to improve my social life.