J. J.

I left a "not' out. Sorry.

It would need to be suspended; the majority can reopen nominations by a majority vote. See pp. 288-9.

I would draw it from p. 405 ll. 2-6. Something that could not be adopted as a rule of order could not be "in the nature of a rule of order." I would also not that such a rule did not appear until the 7th edition. General Robert was fine with that.

Possibly. 1. Some procedural rules are not in the nature of a rule of order. 2. Some procedural rules cannot be suspended.

What ground on p. 251 do you cite?

I agree, but the question what on p. 251 does suspending the rule violate, in this case? Do you feel that, if the assembly does suspend the rules for a future meeting, that suspension will be null and void?

You wrote: " No, rules that have their application outside of the session which is in progress cannot be suspended." I don't see any reason listed on p. 251 that says that, except that it could violate absentee rights. I agree that an assembly cannot tie the hands of a future session (except by a special rule or bylaws). I do not see, except for a violation of absentee rights, any reason to rule the motion out of order after the motion has been adopted and the society has attended to other business. (I could see an FPPL that said, the society can only bind the hands of a future assembly by means of a special rule or bylaw, but that is not identified in text.)

It a majority of the membership were present, then the action could be taken; those would be the absentees not present at the current meeting. I could not come up with another reason other than absentee rights. What would the ground be for ruling the motion out of order, especially after the fact? As an aside, if the assembly were to "adopt" a special rule, without previous notice, at a quorate meeting, but without a majority of the entire membership present, that would be out of order. As of now, I would use the same argument that this violates absentee rights (at the current meeting). Would you see another ground for ruling it out of order after the fact?

I would consider that the appeal of the ruling that the motion violates the bylaws not to be pending at that point in time. We have this scenario: Member make a motion (seconded) Chair rules the motion out of order on the ground that it violates the bylaws. Member appeals the decision of the chair (seconded). The appeal of the bylaw violation point of order is pending. Chair rules that the appeal of the bylaw violation point of order is dilatory and out of order. At this point, the appeal of the bylaw violation point of order is no longer pending. Member appeals the decision (seconded) of the chair that the appeal was dilatory. At this point, only the appeal of the decision that the motion was dilatory is pending. **************************************************** There can be a situation where a point of order might be raised during the consideration of an appeal where the appeal is itself is pending and not decided. I agree with my colleagues that an appeal made in good faith is prima facie evidence that the appeal is valid, and that the member would be justified in putting the motion from the floor. I have expressed this previously as "No motion is dilatory that the assembly chooses to entertain (no matter how dilatory it really is)." It says, in effect, that the determination of if a motion is dilatory ultimately rests with the majority.

I would note that a motion to censure could, in some cases, be an original main motion and in some cases be an incidental main motion. In both cases, it remains a main motion.

I agree, but would this, broadly, be violation of absentee rights? This session telling the next session what it can or can't do without establishing a special rule of order.

I would say that someone should get as close to the meeting space as possible, call the meeting to order, and then set an adjourned meeting.

Well, you could have a problem relating to ASPA. I do not agree that they have received notice. Keep in mind that the rules may be suspended to take up the postponed motion at this meeting. Just because the motion was postponed to the next session does mean it it will not be considered this session.

Since it is incredibly easy to comply, why is this a problem?

Even excluding a need for the notice to be mentioned in the call of the meeting. No one in the assembly has actually been given notice.

The process, however, is "efficient," as it give the member making the motion two paths to achieving it.

The notice would have to be "reasonable."

Since the postponement is not required to be in the call, there would still be a problem. No one has informed absentees or the assembly that a the motion will be introduce, effectively, anew.

RONR does not exist to prevent eye rolling. The member has two courses of action and may follow both simultaneously.

The member can ask. I would be of the opinion that a good chair would note that, if the motion was postponed it will still require a 2/3 vote,. e.g. "If the motion to postpone is adopted the motion to rescind will still require a 2/3 vote." Hopefully the member asks, via parliamentary inquiry, "How could this this motion be adopted by a majority vote?"

I do not see this as being "inefficient" in any way. The member making the motion in September, for example, can give notice with exceptional ease. At the next session, October, the assembly may consider the "September motion," and the noticed "October motion" may be made and considered. It should be acceptable as there has been a rather important change in circumstances, a different vote requirement (p. 337, 1)). To me, that shows a great deal of flexibility within the rules.

I'm not certain of what thread this is. I do not find any compelling reason to rule the giving of notice out of order. I think it would have to separate, however.

I would say that this is a legal question. It may be necessary to come out of a motion for a vote and immediately return to executive session.

I agree with the "no." That said, there would not be a problem of giving notice at the meeting where the is postponed, and at the next meeting withdrawing the motion that postponed and then making a fresh motion to rescind (which would have notice). This might be more important in cases where the motion Amend Something Previously Adopted is used.

I my opinion, a parliamentarian should cite sources in a written opinion. That said, his opinion may be perfectly correct.