J. J.

Would not the bylaws superseded this? If the bylaws say, in effect, an officer shall cease to be an officer when this commission is met, why would rescission or disciplinary action be needed?

Zev was not president, but the bylaws may grant him that authority retroactively. The English Parliament went so far as declaring John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset, legitimate, some 29 years after he was born to unmarried parents Some of his descendants are still around, including the head of state of the country in which you reside. I would not call that "absurd" in the least. As another example, the US Constitution prohibits Congress from making ex post facto laws. The implication is that, without this prohibition, Congress could make ex post facto laws; the prohibition would not be needed otherwise. In theory, an assembly is sovereign and is only limited, internally, by its own self created rules; it may even establish how those rules will be changed. Internally, the bylaws/constitution of the organization may authorize or prohibit anything.

Any acts that Zev took as president between 1/2 and 4/2 are valid. If only the president can appoint committees members, and Zev has appointed them, they are validly appointed.

A bylaw amendment could specify the person who would be president, even after a valid election. A bylaw amendment that says "Zev shall be president for the term beginning in 2019," means that you are president, even if I had a majority of the votes cast for president at the last election. That bylaw amendments changes, or perhaps bulldozes, that landscape. Why? The people that voted for me have chosen this course of action, in a manner to which they have previously approved. They have done that by amending their bylaws.

I'm not sure what difference it would make. If there was some specific act, the bylaws could legitimize that act.

A bylaw could be adopted to have a retroactive effect. It would be possible for a bylaw amendment to say, "The individuals who received the highest and second highest number of votes in the 2019 election shall serve as co-presidents," possibly as a proviso. You would have to create the office of "co-president" in your bylaws. I, however, agree with the others when they indicate having co-presidents is an extremely bad idea.

I would note that Rescind can only apply to things that are in force and that has been "made or created at any time or times as the result of the adoption of one or more main motions (p. 305, ll. 28-31)." Postponed, as described in the example, is a subsidiary motion. On that ground, it would be out of order. I do, however, agree with the other comments. This motion would be out of order for at least two different reasons.

The footnote on p. 643 refers to a motion to censure, i.e. "That _____ be censured," in its simplest form. Adopting that motion expresses an opinion of the assembly. It does not punish. There is no finding of guilt. The process described on pp. 645-7 refers to the disciplinary process for an offense, where the member is "named" by the chair. That "naming" is, effectively, the finding of guilt. Certainly a point of order could be raised that the chair has improperly "named" a member. If the member is "named" then the assembly may inflict a penalty (or decline to do so). In that case, the question is "what penalty shall be imposed upon a member (p. 647, l. 13-14)." At that point censure becomes a possible punishment; it is not the only possible punishment. The assembly is not considering the motion "That _____ be censured." Certainly censure can be a punishment, after a finding of guilt.

Please start a new topic. This thread is more than six years old.

I would note that is is a prime example of censure of a member that does not rise to the level of disciplinary action.

You could also phase the motion "that we have no confidence in the chair because of __________." This would not cause his removal.

What are the requirements for amending the bylaws?

You could say the same thing about direct testimony. The testimony has to be believed by the person/people making the decision. Does the witness have a bias? Is the witness accurate? That will be taken with a grain of salt as well.

Just to be crystal clear, the second quoted paragraph refers to evidence in a disciplinary trial.

You think this action makes him unfit for membership or that it tends to injure the organization. The assembly does not. It is the assembly's decision; it is neither your decision nor mine. Any opinion expressed by the assembly of a member, has the potential of harming a member's reputation. A motion to "that Member A be commended for great job he does running his bordello," could be a negative for Member A's reputation. That motion to commend is not a charge nor does it imply that the assembly thinks that this would make him unfit for membership. Conversely, a motion that "Member A, be censured for organizing a neighborhood trash cleanup," may be a positive for Member A's reputation. The assembly does not think it makes him unfit for membership, even if the assembly feels that it is subject to censure . The "charge" has to involve something that could impair his status as a member. Assume that a motion "That Member A be censured for _____" were offered and then postponed. The assembly could not adopt a motion suspending any of his rights of membership, as described on p. 662, ll. 25-31. That would violate his rights of membership. If the member were charged, even without a finding of guilt, those rights of membership can be limited.

It is a distinction with a difference; that is the particular point. It does reflect on anything that effect his status as a member; there no claim that this will make him unfit. It is not something that violates the "standards" of the member. The second is a sample, but if you want it fleshed out more it can be expressed as "That we confirm Member's 2 action in regard to X, taken in excess of his instructions." As to the facts "not being in dispute," how would the assembly know? Member 2 may not be there, and, if there, may not be permitted to speak in debate on the motion. He would not have a right to offer a defense. Even if the facts are not in dispute, I would hold that this would not make any difference. The facts may not be in dispute, but if these were actual "allegations against his good name," there would be the need for formal disciplinary action. It is not merely that the facts are clear but if the action itself rises to something that that could cause the member to be expelled. He would have to "show cause why he should be expelled (p. 660, ll. 4-7)." For discipline to be used, the question is not merely if the accused committed an act, but if that act rises to something that can impair his membership, i.e. a charge. There is not claim that a motion to censure Member 2 does rise to that level. It is the difference between the assembly saying, **we disagree, strongly, with something you did,** and the assembly saying **what you did makes you unfit for membership.**

Since you have raised it. How could you possibly square that opinion with pp. 124-5. It is very clear that a motion to ratify may be amended to a motion to censure, e.g. "That we confirm Member 2's action taken in excess of his instructions," could be amended by substitute at least, to "that we censure Member 2 for taking action action in excess of his instructions." Member 2 may to be aware of the motion, as previous notice is not required, and may not even be present. Further, while the motion and any amendment is debatable, the Previous Question may called on the amendment and then the now amended motion to censure without giving any chance to speak to either the motion or the amendment.

An opinion is an opinion, positive or negative. It makes no charge, as such, against a member. It does not say, "We find ______ guilty of some offense." That is where I see the distinction. There are two different motions; I will use Member 1 as an example. 1. "That Member 1 is censured for X." 2. "Member 1 is found guilty of doing X. The punishment for doing X is censure." Two points. A motion to censure may be properly amended to become a motion to commend. The motion, "That Member 1 be censured for X" may be amended by striking out 'censure' and inserting 'commend.'" The motion to determine guilt, "Is Member 1 guilty of doing X." That cannot be amended into expressing a different opinion. Second, a member may be found guilty and not receive any punishment. No option for punishment can muster a majority. There, the assembly, has considered a charge that could result in expulsion, and has found that the member has committed that act. He is guilty of something that can warrant punishment, including his unfitness for membership. A motion, "That Member 1 is censured for X," assigns no such guilt. At no point is there any suggestion that Member 1 is unfit for membership. The assembly is saying is saying we disagree with something we think Member 1 did, but Member 1 is totally fit for membership. The assembly may express its disapproval of some member's action, without slipping into discipline. As a matter of procedure, that should be acceptable.

One advantage of the Committee of the Whole (COW) is that a particular issue can be referred to it without a specific main motion being pending. The COW then drafts a motion on the subject and recommends that back to the assembly. Example: "I move that the assembly goes into a committee of the whole to discuss fund raising methods." The COW could then draft the motion and report the motion back to the assembly.

Also, reconsider, if the member voted on the prevailing side the motion to set the limits of debate, provided it was adopted at meeting. BTW: This actually did happen to me.

RONR has no rules regarding non members speaking is that the cannot, without the permission of the assembly (pp. 644-45). Public comment, and any regulation thereof, will be established: A. In any statute applicable to your organization. B. In any bylaws or special rules adopted by your organization. Those rules will supersede RONR.

Once the motion to extend debate has failed, it may not be renewed in regard to the same question in this circumstance (pp. 340, ll.1-8). The motion was out of order, should be ruled out of order and would be dilatory if repeated. It may advisable for the chair to note that the motion to extend the limits of debate would be out of order. It might be advisable for the chair to note that motion to extend the limits of debate is amendable, while it is pending.

Try p. 234, ll. 9-13, and then pp. 220-21.

Parliamentary Practice: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.49015002540178;view=1up;seq=9

It would probably take a 2/3 vote to stop the assembly from adjourning at 4:30, it they are still in session. A motion to set an adjournment to a future time is an incidental main motion (p. 234, ll. 9-13). It would require a 2/3 vote or a majority of the entire membership (or previous notice) to rescind that motion. At the time set for adjournment, this would be a motion to set aside the orders of the day (p. 241, ll. 1-4). That requires a 2/3 vote (pp. 222-3).