J. J.

Many organizations do not have constitutions; if they do they rank above the bylaws.

It can be a bit more complicated than that. Rule Chart.pdf

I'm going to give a different answer than most of my colleagues. The meeting itself is null and void (assuming that there are absentees), because of the improper notice. A action taken in violation of a rule protecting absentees creates a breach of a continuing nature (p. 251, ll. 20-21). A point of order can be raised against this at any time while this breach continues. Someone who became a member after this meeting would be capable of rising a point of order regarding it. Some member who attended this meeting, or who was absent, can raise a point of order after the fact. An improperly called meeting cannot be "counted" as a proper meeting, unless the bylaws say otherwise, because it violates absentee rights. The point of order may be raised again, if the breach is continuing. If the chair decides the same way, that decision should be appealed.

My first question is, if this is a board meeting, are the comments about a member of the board? If this is about a member of the organization that is not a member of the board, it would not be a violation of decorum for a board member to make these type of comments. It might not be germane. Under small board rules, it would be acceptable to consider a response to a member's conduct without a motion pending. It would also be acceptable to refer the question of a response of the member's conduct to a committee of the whole. I'm using the word "conduct" specifically, because it could refer to commendable conduct.

The courts may enforce parliamentary law. In any event, that would be a legal question.

Not hole. There is an example in RONR where it is not necessary to note that the request is granted, nor to ask if there is objection. The chair just orders the action taken.

The chair can rule, but it might not be the correct ruling.

The failure to utter the phrase is "if there is no objection" or "the requested is granted" would be ground ruling an action void after the fact. It would be a breach of a continuing nature. If I can cite an example from RONR, would you agree?

A custom or usage that conflicts with something adopted yields to it; the custom is said to fall to the ground upon a point of order (p. 19). It may be part of the general parliamentary law.

I didn't suggest that it was proper proper. I suggested that it was valid. If the chair does something, improperly, but no one objects, that is the will of the assembly. Qui tacet consentire videtur, i.e. " he who is silent is taken to agree" is, unfortunately, a quite old principle.

The recording of this is proper in my opinion. The minutes should read "The board (or other assembly) eliminated (the committees)," or something similar. If the chair said something like, "Okay, (these specific committees) are abolished," and no one objected at the time, they were abolished, at least from a procedural standpoint. According to RONR, the minutes do not have to list the method of voting, nor the count, except in cases where a count has been ordered by the chair, or where the vote was by roll call or ballot. There may be legal requirements covering your organizations, but that a legal question.

It definitely should be minuted, e.g. "the assembly discharged the committee," in cases where the action was taken by unanimous consent.

I'm not sure that the minutes should say that the request is granted, under RONR. Statute may provide otherwise. If a committee was discharged as a result of a two thirds vote, the minutes should not have to note that.

Yes, executive session.

A point of order may be raised to demand that a rule be enforced. While that might, incidentally, "show the others just how many rules and how often, are being broken, and also to show that a chair is grossly negligent in their duties of knowing, implementing and enforcing the rules of order," the purpose is to enforce the rules.

From a procedural standpoint, the society could enact a special rule requiring trials to be held in open session. It also must obey any applicable procedural rules in law; they would be similar to a special rule, in that they supersede the parliamentary authority. The simple fact that the assembly cannot meet in executive would not be sufficient to prevent it from holding a trial. I would note that there could be liability issues with holding a trial in open session, though that is a legal question.

While RONR notes that a member "should" abstain for voting on a matter in which he has a "direct personal or pecuniary interest not in common to other members," it also notes that the member cannon be compelled to abstain (p. 107, ll. 21-31). It is not clear that the the contract would be "direct personal or pecuniary interest." These other matters probably would not rise to that level. Even if they did, he could vote on them.

Agreeing with Mr. Martin, the chair cannot impose limits.

There is suppose to be an alternation between pro and con positions. The chair could be doing that.

Would you prefer post-nominal letters. (I got the message.)

It would be best for the body to adopted a rule covering this.

I agree with Dr. Katz, as far as RONR concerned. The quorum is the number of voting members (p. 3, ll. 1-5). I also agree with Mr. Brown. If the bylaws specifically and clearly say the board consists 8 members, no amount of interpretation can change "eight" to "nine."

Yes, unless your bylaws permit the board to decide who sits on the board.

I think the only question is if the board to make this rule, not that there is a right for any member to specific motion. An assembly could adopt a rule that would prohibit the making of a certain motion, including R/ASPA. The rules could also be suspended to prohibit the making of a certain motion during an entire session.

Then a majority could not instruct the board in these cases? Correct?