J. J.

The second was so nice, he said it twice.

I agree that full video conferencing works better, though audio only is workable. Neither is easy and requires modification of the standard rules.

Some of that can be handled with good audio/video devices. The votes can be tallied separately, if there are 3-4 specific locations.

I have some success, with international organization, but the technology and rules must be adapted for it to work.

Under RONR, the precise language governs, i.e. a vote of the majority of the entire membership is different than a majority vote of the members. Based on that, I would have to go with a 2/3 vote of the trustees choosing to cast a vote, excluding the member being removed. If there 7 members at the meeting, including the member being removed, there are 6 members that can vote; if all six vote four would be needed o remove. If only three vote, two would be needed.

Anything from frequently to never. It depends on the group.

Your rules supersede those in RONR.

Concur. A society may establish a rule that we find illogical.

No; someone could move to take a recess.

Unless they are voting members of the organization, the employees do not.

In answer to the second question, the motion to adjourn would not be privileged if there had already been a set time to adjourn (p. 234, #2).

I agree, in both instances. This was about instructing delegates and no where in RONR does it suggest that a special rule is needed to permit either. Mr. Honemann's initial alluded to a special rule, which is why I asked the question. If there was no notice and a majority of the entire membership was not there, it would still be in order under the rules for Suspension of the Rules.

In this case, couldn't the rule that delegates be elected by majority vote be suspended for the session?

Agreeing, I would note that p. 669 permits the assembly to create a committee on discipline that could handle all disciplinary cases, including the investigative aspects. A single committee could be appointed to investigate several cases.

There is a difference. A nonmember has no right to attend or speak at an open meeting. An honorary member has a right to to do both.

Page 95, ll. 31-33, in conjunction with p. 3., ll. 11-12, "Whenever the term member is used in this book, if refers to full participating membership in the assembly unless otherwise specified." An honorary member does not have "full participating membership" in a meeting. Therefor, the honorary member is not one of the "members of the body that is meeting," as the honoray member does not possess "full participating membership."

Well, an honorary member has a right to attend meetings and speak in debate (p. 463, ll. 21-25), but he is not a voting member and has no right to attend executive sessions.

It is not unqualified, however. It refers to " permission to advance any motion," but not "be present at" the meeting. I was hoping for language "...shall be an ex officio member, retaining all rights, except the right to vote." This clause grants rights to the ex officio member, but does not specifically grant the right to remain in the executive session. I have no doubt that the ex officio member could move to go into executive session, or appeal the decision of the chair removing him from an executive session. Either way, the chair's ruling is subject to appeal.

Unless your board meets less often that quarterly, an agenda is not used. The standard order of business is used (p. 353, ll. 17-22). Filling a vacancy under a clause in the bylaws would come under "special orders," which comes up right after reports of special committees and before unfinished business.

Se the footnote on p. 263,

That seems to cover it. I would question if such a non-voting member had a right to remain in executive (closed) session, but that is a question of bylaw interpretation.

Yes. The actual wording will determine the level of rights this non-voting ex officio member has. You might want to post the language.

I do not agree, based on p. 66, ll. 18-22. An incidental main motion that postpones something indefinitely can be adopted.

No, under that wording, it would not be possible for the person to remain.

I think that it does give the answer, however. 1. If a main motion has been postponed indefinitely, it is not pending. That is true if the motion has been postponed indefinitely by either a subsidiary motion or as part of an incidental main motion. 2. A motion to reconsider can only be made against a motion that has been disposed, in general. 3. Specifically, if a motion to Postpone Indefinitely is rejected, it is not subject to reconsideration. If it is adopted, it is not pending. I'm trying to understand what the bone of contention is in this. I am failing to at this point.