J. J.

It can be a concern very easily, if the small board rule of not setting any limits on debate is used (p. 488, ll. 2-5). It is the main reason I would not say that small board rules apply, and a legislative body is different than a board. I do agree that many small board are applicable. I would suggest that this body consider looking at drafting some supplemental rules, if they use small board rules (or they were to use regular rules).

The assembly adopts this motion "the board be instructed not entertain amendments to amendments of main motions." This is an instruction and is not adopted by the vote needed to adopt a rule of order. Is this instruction in order and binding on the board?

Then to my second question, the assembly adopts this motion "the board be instructed not entertain amendments to amendments of main motions." This is an instruction and is not adopted by the vote needed to adopt a rule of order. Is this instruction in order and binding on the board?

And it is your opinion that the board could not adopt such a rule?

It is permissible, but it may not be advisable, to permit unlimited debate, especially if this is a governmental agency. That would be provided for under small board rules.

Would a special rule, "Amendments to amendments of main motions shall not be in order," quality as a rule conflicting with RONR? If so, could the board adopt that rule?

I would not the Democratic National Committee a committee in the sense that RONR uses the word "committee." Both "village board," and the city council would be legislative body , however, they may "resemble" a board or an assembly of a local society (p. 8, ll. 18-25).

I'm seeing real problems with this answer. The first is the specific mention of a special rule in RONR. For example, RONR notes that a special rule can be adopted to require something other than a majority to order a roll call vote (p. 420, ll. 10-19), but it does not permit a special rule to be adopted to permit a roll call vote to be ordered on specific motions. The board wants to adopt a special rule "that a roll call vote be ordered on any motion before the board that authorizes an expenditure of more that $500.00." Since this is not specifically mentioned, such a rule would be beyond the board, according to this theory. Is that correct? The second is the "ordering" aspect. The assembly adopts a motion instructing the board "to conduct a roll call vote on any motion before the board that authorizes an expenditure of more that $500.00." Would they be able to do that without adopting a rule of order?

A special rule of order is permanent until rescinded or amended (or superseded by a bylaw). Note that many rules of order can suspended, even for the entire session.

The assembly can, however, permit the board to adopt rules of order. They could do that, technically, but instructing the board, by majority vote. They would not need to establish a special rule to do it. I don't see anything that would indicate that they would need a special rule. Here is an example. If the assembly should adopt a motion "that the board be never go into executive session," there is nothing in the book that would suggest that a greater than majority vote is needed. Certainly, if this was a rule adopted by the assembly to apply to the assembly, it would be a special rule of order, as it deals with the orderly transaction of business if adopted by the board itself. I'm having trouble saying, yes this is a rule of order and no it isn't. I am wondering if the p. 486, ll. 13-19 refers to this situation: The board adopts this motion: "All meetings of the assembly shall be held in open session." In other words, the board cannot adopt rules for the assembly which conflict with the parliamentary authority.

The converse would be true. The assembly can establish a special rule prohibiting the board from making any special rules. I cannot think of anything where the assembly would have to pre-authorize some action of the board, at least regarding some procedural. The assembly could establish a rule of order that require the board meetings to always be held in executive session or prohibit executive session. Without a rule either way the board is free to determine when it would go into executive session. Could the adopt a rule that says, "executive sessions shall not be permitted?" Certainly the could suspend the rules and prohibit motions to go into executive session, for the session. I really cannot see a reason why not.

There may specific positions whose occupants have the title of "elected director" and "appointed director." It would be possible for someone to be appointed to fill a vacancy in the position of "appointed director." This is a question where you would need to consult the bylaws, carefully.

However, RONR permits its rules to be superseded by a special rule of order in most cases (p. 16, ll. 1-2). RONR says two things. The board cannot establish a special rule that runs counter a rule in RONR; most rules in RONR can be superseded by a special rule. If you assume the former, then the latter cannot be true.

Yes, a subordinate board could, for its own meetings (p. 486, ll. 17-19). Granted, the assembly could rescind that rule. The assembly could also adopt a rule of order prohibiting the board from creating a special rule of order relating to R/ASPA in specific or prohibiting the board from adopting a special rule of order, in general.

I am in agreement with Mr. Brown, Mr. Katz, and Dr. Kapur. It is in order to adopt a special rule that would prohibit* R/ASAP, or any other motion. It might not be advisable to do so, but it is possible. The rule is a rule of order and may be suspended. It would be possible to adopt a special rule prohibiting R/ASPA and later suspend the rules to permit this special rule to be rescinded. *If the bylaws contain a provision for their own amendment, a special rule could not prevent amendments to the bylaws.

It is more than a "beach of etiquette." This definitely is a legitimate ground for disciplinary action, including removal. It is possibly the only specific ground listed in RONR (p. 96, ll. 6-9). The assembly, however, in the circumstances choose not to pursue the matter. To draw an analogy with a prosecutor, a prosecutor may exercise his discretion in many cases. He may be aware that an act might be violation of the criminal law, but for a variety of [good] reasons, not prosecute it. Likewise, the assembly may not choose to begin the process outlined in Chapter XX, or decide that after going through some of the preliminary steps, not to pursue a trial by the members. Even if there is a trial before the assembly, and a guilty verdict, the assembly decide not to inflict a penalty. RONR does not require that the assembly take any action. A distinction needs to be drawn between the violation and any remedy for it.

It also have appeared online: https://archive.org/details/parliamentarylaw00robe/page/n7

They may have some other procedure.

How many members does this board have? It it is 21 or less, 11 is a majority of the entire membership. That is sufficient to rescind under RONR (pp. 306-7).

If it is a small board and the president is a voting member, he can vote (p. 488, ll. 18-20).

However, the committee may be able to appoint a subcommittee (p, 497. ll.14-19).

Grammatically, the first line means " trailer," and "mobile home," one that is either. The second line says " trailer mobile home," so is there a definition of a such a thing.

The motion may be taken from the table as the next meeting of the type of meeting that Mr. Gerber describes at several points. It may taken from the table during unfinished business and under new business. It may also be taken up when the same class of business is pending. For example, a motion growing out a standing committee report may be tabled at the May meeting. It may be taken off the table when the reports of standings committees are in order, in addition to under unfinished or new business (p. 213, ll. 6-11). That is usually one of the next questions.

Agreeing, I will add that such a provision might be placed in the bylaws. I will also note even an inquorate meeting can schedule an adjourned meeting (p. 347, ll. 30-33). That might be a viable option.

I will go beyond reelsman a bit, though I agree that the motion to lay the motion on the motion is in order. Suppose that Motion X is pending. The motion "That we postpone consideration of Motion X until we contact Ms. Smith," is adopted. Motion X is postponed. At the next regular meeting, held within the quarterly time interval, Ms. Smith has still not been contacted; she has been unavailable. Motion X could not be reached, unless the rules were suspended by a 2/3 vote. i.e. a motion, "That the rules be suspended to consider Motion X at this time." Motion X cannot be considered because the condition for its consideration, contacting Ms. Smith, has not been reached; it will not be reached during this session without suspending the rules. Supposed that Motion X is pending. It debate, it is suggested that the assembly get more information from Ms. Smith. The motion "that Motion X be laid on the table" is adopted. At the next regular meeting, held within the quarterly time interval, Ms. Smith has still not been contacted; she has been unavailable. A motion, "That Motion X be taken from the table," is in order (under the proper heading) and would require a majority vote. Further, if there was a desire to to hear from Ms. Smith, the motion could be subject to lay on the table, even after a brief period of debate. While I would not rule the motion "That we postpone consideration of Motion X until we contact Ms. Smith," it would certainly be advisable to adopt the motion, "that Motion X be laid on the table." Postpone Definitely ends up being very indefinite where there is not a set event that triggers it.