J. J.

If the proposed amendment transforms a one "parliamentary motion" into another, then it is out of order. Since I am "absolutely correct" that the proposed amendment converts the motion from an incidental motion to a main motion, it is out of order. That said, if the request was not granted, or was not before the assembly, then a motion to remove someone from a position, or preferring charges, is in order. Why? Each is a different motion.

This is not a change from an original main to an incidental main motion. It is a change from an incidental motion, a Request to Be Excused From a Duty, to an incidental main motion. Those are different classes of motions.

This has nothing to do with germaness; these are two separate classes of motions. A motion to accept a request to resign from a position is an incidental motion. A motion to remove someone from a position is an incidental main motion, possibly Rescind. This violates the rule that an amendment is improper because it "would have the effect of converting one parliamentary motion into another (p. 138, ll. 34-35)." The amendment would change an incidental motion into a main motion. There is a substantive difference between removing someone from a position and granting that person's request to leave that position. That is clearly shown, on p. 292, ll. 7-10. They are two different things that can only be adopted by two different classes of motions.

That is why I suggested postponing the acceptance of the resignation.

The chair would rule that the "essential idea" of a motion to accept a resignation is not the same as the "essential idea" a motion to remove someone from a position. There was discussion of the case of the New York Bar removing Richard Nixon after he submitted his resignation, and it was declined. Further, RONR notes that a resignation sent to avoid charges may be rejected, and charges adopted (p. 292, ll. 7-10). That gives a very clear indication that a motion to accept a resignation is not the same as a motion to prefer charges.

I don't think that would be in order, as a substitute. It would change the motion form from a Request to be Excused From a Duty to an incidental main motion (probably raised a Question of Privilege). It would change the form enough for me to rule it out of order (pp. 138-9). The resignation could be rejected and a motion that the pastor be dismissed could be entertained. I would permit the motion to accept the resignation to be postponed, or even subject to Lay on the Table, and the motion to dismiss to be taken up. I would treat a resignation as being a different question as a motion to remove someone from a position.

If the title " Executive Director" is established in the bylaws, you can only change this by amending the bylaws.

He said meeting during a convention. He did write of it "during convention sessions," not while the convention was recessed or adjourned. It is an interesting opinion (Parliamentary Opinions, Opinion 280.). If the board meeting was able to be properly called, and not disruptive to the assembly, both meetings could happen at the same time and in, at least, overlapping space. In a similar situation, a committee could meet while the assembly was meeting, in the same room (even a committee larger than one). I think it would be cumbersome, and often not practical, but it could be done.

Technically, they wouldn't be meeting at the same time. I'm thinking of a situation where the board members are members of the assembly and, without leaving the meeting, have a meeting in the corner of the room. The still participate in the assembly meeting, but they are also doing business in a board meeting. IMO, it is not a good idea, but it can happened. It is certainly something that would be exceptional.

In theory, both bodies could meet at the same time in the same place, or a subset of the larger body. It may not be advisable, but it could be done. They may also be situations where the the board has exclusive authority to have some action, and it becomes necessary for the board to conduct business. Bill Evans did opine that way, I think.

I'm not sure that is the case.

I may have missed, but I do not see a reference to statute.

I will first note that Robert's Rules of Order In Brief has very little on disciplinary action, generally referring the reader to RONR. Due to the complexity of disciplinary action, this is understandable. Robert's Rules for Dummies does give a great deal of explanation. As to learning the procedure, I would suggest that. Secondly, I will say that disciplinary procedure is exceptionally complex. This is one of the things where I advise you to hire a parliamentarian that is familiar with the process.

I'm looking at who has the ultimate authority to interpret.

A statute mandating a particular parliamentary authority for a type of organization would be a an applicable procedural rule prescribe in law (p. 251, c.). It could not be violated. I think that the best to handle this is to ask the secretary if a stop sign or a one way sign is "used as a guideline." If the answer is no, then you have probably have made your point.

"could, and could." The motion that "Member X be censured for insulting nuns" could be amended to "Member X be commended for insulting nuns." I probably wouldn't vote for the amended version, but it would be in order.

Because it is a different session. A lot of time has elapsed and it is more likely for people to have changed their minds. In some cases, e.g. a convention, there many be totally new set of members.

The proposal is "That the annual dues be set at the annual dues in 2018, plus ten percent for 2019, and that, for 2020, the annual dues be set at the annual dues in 2018, plus fifteen percent." Again, if you think this proposal violates the bylaws, please indicate why. If the proposal, made this year, without the other being adopted was, "That the annual dues for 2021 be set at the annual dues in 2018, plus twenty percent," would that violate the quoted bylaw. I am not following your logic, so that is why I am asking.

Let's go back to the rule itself, in toto. " The Board shall recommend the amount of annual Dues for each class of membership and shall transmit all proposed Dues changes, with a statement as to their necessity, to the Secretary. The Secretary shall distribute the proposal and statement of necessity to all Members and Emeritus Members at least 60 days before the Annual Business Meeting and will facilitate discussion and submission of comments on the proposal from the membership prior to and at the Annual Business Meeting. The Secretary shall summarize the comments received. The proposed change together with the statement of necessity and the summary of comments shall be presented to the Members and Emeritus Members in good standing for final approval or rejection by secret vote." The board has the amount of dues, and has submitted the "proposed dues changes." Again, they could express this in a motion, "that the annual dues shall be equal to the annual dues of the previous year, plus 3 percent of the the previous year's dues, rounded to the nearest cent." That statement is the "proposed change in the amount of the dues." That is a standing rule as much as a proposal, "that the annual dues shall be $100," is a standing rule as adopted. The proposal "that the annual dues shall be equal to the annual dues of the previous year, plus 3 percent of the the previous year's dues, rounded to the nearest cent," Where X equals the previous year's dues, the current dues are X + (X/100 x 3), rounded to the nearest cent. That is the amount of the dues increase. That is not substantive different than adopting this proposal: "The annual dues shall be set for the stated amount for each year listed: 2019: $103 2020: $106.09 2021: $110.11 2022: $113.41 .................. (out to infinity)." The difference is that the second example expresses it in dollars and cents (and is infinitely longer). There is nothing in the bylaw quoted that says, "The dollar amount of the dues shall be included with the notice," "or "included in the proposal." The idea that a proposal, to be valid, must express things in dollar amounts is being read into the bylaws. I won't discuss future years in this question, but it does relate to the expression question. The proposal is "That the annual dues be set at the annual dues in 2018, plus ten percent." If you think that the proposal violates the bylaws, please indicate why.

Yes, the general membership has that authority, specifically, "Each society decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws (p. 588, l.25)." Note that, if the meaning is clear, it cannot be changed by interpretation. The only exception would be if the bylaws, or some rule adopted by the assembly, grants the board the authority to interpret the bylaws.

I agree, unless it was as a persistent violation.

The first point was a reference to Zev's comment. I don't equivocate; I state it directly. Under the bylaw quoted, if there is a proposed change in the rule relating to the dues the rule regarding notice must be followed. It does not relate to the dues itself. In other words, it controls how the dues are set, not what the dues are. They bylaws could have been constructed, fairly easily, to require every time the dues were changed. Simply saying "any proposed change in the amount of the dues," would be sufficient. If the framers had wished to prevent something like a standard percentage, the could have, with ease; they did not. That may point to the intent.

I see nothing in the presented bylaw that would even hint that it was the intent of the framers to require the dues be approved each year. The dues differ. However, the bylaws to do not say that there must be notice and a vote any time the amount of the dues is different from the prior year. The bylaws refer to the "proposed change." In 2017, the proposed change was: "That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues." There was no proposed change in 2018, or 2019. Except by amending or rescinding the adopted rule, " That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues," there will be no change in 2020 either. The dues and the adopted proposal are two different things.

The dues increase is 3% of the dues. Assume that this mean 3% of the dues annually when the proposal was adopted, for simplicity, and that this was adopted 2017. In 2017, the dues were $100 per year. In 2018, the dues were $103. In 2019, they are $106. In 2020, the will be $109. In 2021, they will be $112. The proposal is "that the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues," again for simplicity; that is the proposal as approved in 2017. What is wording of that rule in 2018? "That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues." What is wording of the rule in 2019? "That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues." In 2020, unless amended? "That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues." 2021? "That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues." There has been no change to that rule.

From the former amount to 3% per year. A 3% increase in dues changes the dues. The proposal "to increase the dues 3% per year," once adopted, does not change.