J. J.

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?

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.