J. J.

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.

The rule, " may be elected viva voce" is a rule in the nature of a rule order and could be suspended as per P. 17, ll 19-27. I don't see this as a issue, unless someone wants to have some other form of vote.

I do not agree that this would be another class of membership, since this would be extended to non voting members.

The motion could be rescinded, or amended using Amend Something Previously Adopted.

I think the rule in RONR that the assembly would have to determine case is a rule in the nature of a rule of order and could be superseded by a special rule. Absent a special rule, it involves the right to due process, and, as a basic right of an individual member, it could not be suspended.

I have to quibble with your quibble of Josh's quibble. The requirement to show cause can only exist within a meeting and does deal with the transaction of business, i.e. a penalty cannot be imposed without first establishing cause. I am not seeing a reference in RONR which says any deviation from RONR on this point must be established in the bylaws, as there are with some things, e.g. proxy voting. I would also note that there is effectively no definition of cause. A simple expression " That X be removed from office 'cause we don't want him to serve any longer," would be in order (though perhaps not advisable).

Under RONR, there is no prohibition on members getting together and talking outside of a meeting. It is possible that some statute in your state may cover this; I would suggest that, for that, you contact an attorney.

It is also advisable to contact an attorney for any legal requirements specifically for non-profit organizations.

I think they might need a bylaw to set this rule.

Strictly according to RONR, yes. Some organizations are covered by statute that prohibit or limit this ability.

It would not be out of order for a member to move to adopt a motion, calling on some member to resign.

If the chair fails to call the meeting to order, and the meeting is otherwise proper, the vice president can call it to order. If the president refuses to preside, the vice president will chair the meeting. If the president refuses to conduct parts of the meeting, the rules may be suspended to permit the vice president (or someone else) to preside. That would require a 2/3 vote.

Yes, but any single member may demand that any (or all) motions on the list be considered separately (pp. 274-5). This might be a consent calendar, if done at every meeting. It this is to be a standard practice, it would need to be established by a special rule (p. 361).

It has been sent to you.

I would note that, if your game uses the US Constitution, this rule would be unconstitutional.

There is no "townhall" class of meetings in RONR.

It was a legitimate question, at least as I would see it.