J. J.

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.

Page 251, b, c, and possibly e. The bylaws may grant the board the authority to invalidate the election.

The current board.

The only thing that I would note is that the violation of "applicable procedural rules prescribed by federal, stat or local law," can render the action void. It is possible that the motion to go into executive session is void and that, therefor, that the secrecy of an executive session cannot exist, at least to the extent that it violates the law. Whether or not this is the case, I don't know, but it is possible.

I have to agree. It does not appear to be used to kill a motion; it does not appear to be qualified.

First, I agree that the duties of of secretary within a meeting are rules in the nature of rules of order and may properly be superseded by a special rule. The only exception would be if the bylaws specified some specific duties, e.g. "The secretary shall take the minutes of all meetings."* Second, the actual creation of the minutes is often passed to someone else, an employee, for example. The secretary is still responsible for it. *Even then, the rule could be suspended for an entire session, each session.

I concur, in part. The part of the motion capping the amount that could be spent was not dilatory. Guests Susan has indicated that this was one motion. It is rather common to put a condition within a motion, e.g. "to purchase [something] for not more than [a specific amount of money]." I disagree with Dr. Kapur, only to the extent that he claims that the condition cannot be met. Unless there is a desire to do either to cancel the document review and/or questions, or to permit more money to be spent to do it, or to have a specific attorney do it, the motion remains in effect. The motion will remain in effect until that condition is met which is very possible. Mr. Brown noted: His comments best describe the current state of the motion, i.e. the motion, as given here, authorizes the society to hire an attorney who will do these things for no more that $1000. It is a question of finding an attorney who will charge less. Considering the number of attorneys in the United States, there is the very good possibility that one would be willing to do that for that price (or even pro bono). That does not suggest that Susan's group would necessarily be happy with the quality of that attorney's work. If there is a desire to limit the questions to be asked, or to increase the amount of money to be spend for these things, then Amend Something Previously Adopted is the correct method for doing it.

The one problem could be some confusion over who could withdraw a motion. I'd really suggest a special rule establishing a "mover" and a "co-mover," or something similar. It would be more as a method of formalizing the process than for anything else.

Perhaps this would be the best way to phrase the question: 1. A vote is taken that requires a majority and is required to be taken by ballot, Motion A. The result is that 20 people voted yes, 10 vote, 5 do not vote. A member moves "That the vote on Motion A be made unanimous." The vote is taken by voice and there is no objection. Was the motion adopted by a unanimous vote? 2. A vote is taken that requires vote of two thirds of the members present and is required to be taken by ballot, Motion B. The result is that 20 people voted yes, 10 vote, 5 do not vote. A member moves "That the vote on Motion B be made a two-thirds vote of the members present." The vote is taken by voice and there is no objection. Was the motion adopted by a two thirds vote of the members present?

I think that raising a point of order fall under the same violation of secrecy in voting as would asking to make a ballot unanimous. This comes down to a questions of if the rule that X amount of votes is needed when the vote is by ballot, can be suspended and would that suspension require a ballot vote. The answer to both is yes. Once you have had a ballot, the motion to permit another vote amount to be used would require a ballot. What is the difference between requiring some other vote total and a unanimous vote total? A member could abstain when someone offers to make a ballot vote unanimous by voice vote, so I am not seeing it as being "required." By saying silent, any member or members would not have to reveal their views on the matter.

I disagree with your last line. The member objecting may simply that each member's views should be individually expressed, and may object to any attempt for making a non unanimous vote unanimous, because he feels that it is coercive to other members. He may object no matter what form the vote takes. It may not have anything to do with the merits.

If there was a ballot, especially if it was required in the bylaws, it could violate the basic right of an individual member to secrecy in voting when the vote is by ballot. Someone who voted on the losing side may not wish to call there attention to the fact by raising a timely point of order. The analogy is found in the first paragraph of p. 413 (see also pp. 441-2). Is gives a scenario where a member objects to a voice vote to make a ballot vote unanimous. It indicates that the objection would reveal how the member voted. The same principle should apply in this case. Obviously, someone who objects to making a ballot vote unanimous in this circumstances might have voted on the prevailing side, but objects for some other reason. RONR makes no exception for that. Likewise, someone raising a point of order may have voted on the prevailing side, but still objects. RONR currently makes no exception for that either. There has some discussion on if p. 413 is the optimal wording on the subject.

What if this was by ballot?

I agree, in part, with the other comments. My only disagreement is that the breach could have existed for the 12 minutes. Once the time for the meeting to start arrived, the meeting could be called to order; this rule, who presides over the meeting is in the nature of a rule of order and, as such, is in order. Though awkward, the rules could be suspended to permit someone other than the presiding officer to preside and call the meeting to order; there was no breach of a continuing nature as the rule violated is one in the nature of a rule of order. The point of order would have to have been raised at the time the person called the meeting to order.

I'll go a bit further. I think that when a trial is needed to remove someone elected to an office, an officer to be could be removed by trial prior to that officer to be taking office. I would base that on p. 308, ll. 29-30. There are practical problems, because there is usually not enough time to draft charges and hold a trial. If there would a long enough gap between the election and the individual taking office, it would be possible.

An assembly can, if it chooses, adopt a bylaw going so far as prohibiting the removal of an officer. I have seen one set did just that. If the society wishes to a adopt a "no removal until taking office, it is perfectly free to do so. It would not make any difference if you (or I) find it the subject of derision.

The assembly may ask the secretary to stay until a replacement was found; the secretary agrees. The resignation could be amended to "upon a replacement being chosen."

See also "RONR Versus the Blizzard," National Parliamentarian, Fourth Quarter 2010. I am in agreement with Mr. Honemann and Mr. Merritt.

How does the term "officer to be" work, instead of "officer elect."

I didn't specify that this was an interpretation of the bylaws. It might be quite clear, one way or the other. It might be that the one interpretation is wrong, clearly, but the bylaws are ambiguous.

Who can an organization censure? Can we censure someone who isn't technically a member of our organization? Can we censure someone who is required to be a member of our organization by law or bylaws? Specifically, can we censure someone who holds state-level elected office? Anyone, yes, yes, yes What is the effect of a motion to censure? Is it simply "we disapprove of what this person has done" or is there more? It expresses an opinion, nothing more. Does a motion to censure in an ordinary society differ from one in a legislative body? It can. The particular legislature can have rules that make censure something beyond the expression of an opinion. As a subordinate entity (a county-level chapter of a state-level political organization), do we need our parent organization's permission to censure someone? No, unless the rules of either require it.

I think p. 308, ll. 25 does speak to it, clearly. It notes that when "a person has been elected to or expelled from membership or office..." and is present or has been notified that act cannot be rescinded (with exceptions noted). The person, in this case, may not be holding office, but clearly has been "elected to" office. Based on that, disciplinary action could be applied to people elected to, but not yet holding, office. That would be enough to show that someone elected to, but not yet holding, office may be removed as per Chapter XX. I do have a problem with calling it the "position" or "office," because those things would need to be expressed in bylaws and standing rules. The difference is one of vocabulary.

For you, it is obvious that this would not refer to a Parliamentary Inquiry. For some else, it may not be obvious. I am of the opinion, at least at this point, that the parliamentarian is answerable to the chair. It would be legitimate for the chair to prohibit the parliamentarian to answer; that would be a legitimate order of the chair. That said, there is nothing that would prevent the assembly from suspending the rules, and electing a chairman, pro tem, and the chairman instructing the parliamentarian to answer the question. Like any Request for Information, the answer may be, "I decline to answer." The parliamentarian might also answer, "I don't know." In the case of a presumed bylaw ambiguity, where an ambiguity does exist, the parliamentarian could indicate that the assembly will have to interpret the bylaw. I think I have answered my own question, but I did so based on the answers. Thank you all.

I would agree, with a modification to the parenthetical part. I would say that the parliamentarian probably should not answer a request for information, unless requested to do so by the chair. I would that that I am not asking about a Parliamentary Inquiry, because that is directed to the chair.