J. J.

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.

It technically would require the rules to be suspended for the non board member to enter into debate (p. 263, fn.). That is often done by unanimous consent with the chair assuming the motion suspend the rules. If objected to, a motion to suspend the rules and permit the nonmember to speak in debate, would need to be adopted.

I think that those are alluded to as per p. 470, ll. 1-10. Where it could be of importance is if a point of order was raised, or a member was named by the chair.

That would be a possibility. I've seen this come up a few times in the last year, which is why I'm asking.

I would list it, but I'm wondering about the actual requirement. "Mr. Goldsworthy made the motion 'to prohibit smoking the gazebo.' While the motion was pending, the chair, Mr. Smith left the chair and Vice President Jones took the chair. Mr. Smith then took the chair. The motion was adopted."

In general, should the fact that the regular presiding officer left the chair be recorded in the minutes? Would it make a difference if he left on this own, or if the rules were suspended to appoint someone else? Would be the same a motion to vacate the was adopted in regard to the temporary occupant of the chair?

Following the longer notice requirements in the bylaws would be acceptable if they completely withing the notice requirement in the constitution. Where there is a notice sent outside the constitution's notice requirement, e.g. sent out 12 days before the meeting, the notice is invalid. The problem becomes when the assembly sends out notice with violates the bylaws, but not the constitution. For example, sending out notice 55 days in advance clearly violates the bylaws, but not the constitution. Such notice is clearly valid, because the constitutional provision applies. Assume that the bylaws, instead of requiring a maximum of 50 days, permits the notice to be sent no later than 75 day. That would provide additional notice, if the notice mailed out 70 days in advance. The notice would still be invalid, however, because the constitution says that the earliest that the notice be sent is 60 days. That is where there is a problem with the "more protection" argument.

A belated Merry Christmas and a Happy Hanukah to everyone celebrating.

I also agree with Mr. Katz. The expression of one thing in the constitution prohibits things of the same class in any lower ranking rule.

Do I remember correctly that this was a change in the 11th edition? Prior to that there was a procedural bar to rescinding a contract?

I think you should check the bylaws as well, because some property organization base the voting on the number of properties known. If, for example, one person owns 2 houses, he gets 2 votes. This might not apply in this case, but you should double check.

The only exception would be you bylaws give the president the ability to cast a second vote in the case of a tie.

I'm in complete agreement.

This would be a motion relating to voting or to the polls.

I think notice has to fairly warn the members and adding a section may not require a location. However, there is a difference between what is required and what is preferable.

The motion doing so would have to be recorded in the current minutes.

I agree, but notice such a proposed amendment would not have to specifically state that it was an amendment to the bylaws.

I am general agreement, though there could be some circumstances where the proposal would be clearly an amendment to the bylaws. A proposal to permit proxy voting could only be an amendment to the bylaws, for example.

I certainly disagree with the idea the members have a right to know the vote totals, or any other violation of p. 251. I conclude that the motion to suspend that rule was in order. I am agreement that it is extremely bad idea to suspend the rules for this purpose.

I will add my agreement. There now must be clear and convincing evidence.

Isn't that true even if there is no change in membership? The rules, at the future meeting, could be suspended to prohibit the consideration of the postponed items. Likewise, if the question has been tabled at the prior meeting, the assembly may not take it from the table at the current meeting. Like some others, I'm not taking a position on the rule.

No. It is implied on p. 87, ll. 14-19 that a committee can be used as method for considering a motion beyond thee next session.

It is implied that a committee can be used as a vehicle for considering a motion beyond the next session on p. 87, ll. 14-19.

Ultimately, that the reason the rule cannot be suspended is due to absentee rights. By suspending the rules, improperly, so that the future session must consider these items, the current session attempts to place that choice beyond the control of the next session (p. 87, ll. ll. 6-11). Placing something beyond the control of a future session, without using a bylaw or special rule, violates the rights of absentees, because either method requires some measure to protect absentee rights. It would require either previous notice or a majority of the entire membership, both of which serve as a protection of absentee rights. There is an identifiable reason why the rules could not be suspended beyond the current session.

The language in the 4th edition says, "In an assembly a plurality never elects except by virtue of a rule to that effect (p. 24, Introductions (definitions))." That does not say anything about a requiring the bylaws to specify a plurality vote for election of officers; it is clear that special rule could be adopted to permit the election of officer by plurality under the 4th edition. I think that did not occur until the 7th edition. I have no idea why this change was made.