J. J.

Then what, if any, rules, apply to the reporting member and to the members asking questions? There are at least two circumstances where a member may take the floor, speak, but not actually debate a motion; do the rules related to debate (decorum, time limits) appy? I am suggesting that those rules apply to someone who has the floor, and is speaking, even if the speaker is not entering into debate.

I would treat is more as a question of taking the floor. If an item of business in properly before the assembly, and a member may speak on it, how long can he speak on it? The rule on pp. 388-9 (ll. 1-2) refers to speaking "to the same question on the same day." It does not refer to "speaking in debate" or to "debating" a question. Robert, in 1923, did equate the suppression of debate on a main motion which the presentation of a committee report. I think we are in agreement that a committee report (with the censure and disciplinary exceptions) could not use language that is improper in speaking while on the floor. That is a rule found primarily relating to debate, but it applies to committee reports as well. Why would another rule relating to debate not apply to committee reports? I see this rule as applying to the occupant of the floor, regulating his conduct. It does not apply to the committee report, but to the person giving that report. This is especially true since the General held that, in delivering a committee report, a member's presentation could be suppressed in the manner of an original main motion. There is also the practicability consideration. Can a reporting member and/or some questioners eat up hours of the assembly's time without the consent of the assembly? My answer is no, and that RONR does not create a loophole for unlimited occupancy of the floor. (I would add that this does not apply to a motion growing out of a committee report. That motion comes before the assembly as a result of a committee report is separately subject to debate. I think we are on the same page as that.)

That was not the General's opinion, in regard to suppressing a report. He equated it with a main motion. I would say that the rules relating to decorum in debate would apply. A report could not normally contain language improper in debate, for instance. Likewise, the reporting member must obtain the floor, and when occupying it, would be treated as if he was speaking in debate.

The key, for the purposes of this tread, is the phrase, "... just as any other original main motion. " The General clearly saw a link between a committee report and a main motion, at least as far as debate (or its suppression) are concerned.

The exact wording on p. 344 refers to "motions" and "debate." This is a rule relating to debate. You extend this rule to committee reports, correctly, IMO. Why would a limit on speaking not also be applied? The General held that Objection to the Consideration of the Question was applicable to committee reports, including minority reports (Parliamentary Law, p.155)*. While I will note that, since 1923, there have been changes in the rules. I do not believe this is one of them. *Now out of copyright and online: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112104592482;view=1up;seq=14

The distinction between a "question" and something before the assembly is not clear. Supposed a committee uses language that would be improper in a motion, or in debate. A non-disciplinary committee uses harsh language in reference to a member. Does the rule on p. 344 apply? Could Objection to the Consideration of the Question be applied to a committee report? It is a "communication" and it is not from a superior body (p. 268, ll. 2-3). Do the rules limiting the amount of time someone may hold the floor apply to the report of the committee? My answer is "yes" to all three. When someone is recognized and obtains the floor, he must follow the rules relating to debate.

The way pp. 388-89 (through lines 1-2) is worded, it could be. It does not refer to debate specifically. It refers to speaking "to the same question," not debate on that question. So the only question, no pun intended, is if a committee report is a "question," and as such, has a time limitation? Can a reporting member can speak for an unlimited amount of time when giving a report? If push came to shove, I would say yes, that rule does apply to oral committee reports and the reporting member cannot speak beyond the time limit without the assembly suspending the rules. There is also the situation where a special rule limits the time that a reporting member can use to give a committee. This would not apply if a motion growing out of a report is offered by the reporting member.

While a Request(s) for Information would be in order, there are some problems with raising them during, or after, a committee report, when no motion grows out of it. The reporting member has the floor, and has a limited amount of time to occupy the floor. If the report is long, and/or the question(s) and/or answer(s) are long, the reporting member or inquiring member may not get a chance to finish.

It is clear on page 508 that, once the person has been elected to membership, and been informed, it is not possible to rescind that election. It does work the same way with election to office.

I certainly agree that it is a bad idea. However, this particular group might be fine with this.

The invitation was issued by virtue of a motion. That motion to elect someone to membership can be rescinded at any time prior to the person being officially notified (p. 508, c.). To rescind this, however, would require a motion, made at meeting (with a higher vote threshold). If the assembly would meet prior the person being informed the invitation may be rescinded.

The office cannot be "absorbed." It will be necessary for the president to appoint some eligible individual to be approved by the board. Unless your bylaws prohibit one person from holding more than one office, the president could appoint himself to the position,if the board approves.

Under RONR, a motion "to lay the pending question(s) on the table" will temporally suppress the question.

"On the table" is far from the correct terminology. The purpose of making a motion that the member opposes has several procedural effects: 1. It puts the assembly on the record for considering some action and rejecting it. That might be necessary where a board must consider a specific action, based on some rule. You see this often governmental organizations, like zoning boards. 2. It suppresses the question for the session, unless the question is reconsidered.

Please quote exactly the term of office provision in your bylaws.

It is a board, so technically in could go into a committee of the whole. I do not see any value in doing so. You can speak any number of times, so prefacing each reply with "Mr. Chairman" would at least come close to accomplishing OP's desire.

.... or, you could recess and have this discussion, then resume the session. If your board was larger, I'd suggest using a committee of the whole. It seems over complicated if this is a small board. You could also suspend the rules to permit members to address each other directly.

I did use the word "effectively." Most other motions, especially main motions, can only be voted on once during a session (except by using a different method, or by rescind/ASPA,or reconsider). In an election, the question may recur. A member is "entitled to one -and only one- vote on a question (p.407, ll. 1-5)." Yet, a member may cast a vote in the first round of voting, and vote in subsequent rounds of voting in an election. For these purposes, subsequent rounds in an election behave as if each round of voting is voting on a new question.

I don't believe, absent a special rule, that the could be recounted. Each round of voting in an election is effectively a different question.

The person probably has had all of his rights of membership suspended, including the right to speak in debate and make motions. However the assembly could chose to suspend some, but not all, of his rights of membership (see p.662, ll. 25-31). While it is unlikely, it is possible that the assembly removed this person's right to vote, and did not remove his right to make motions and enter into debate.

Because write-in votes would still be legitimate, it would not be a true "'runoff' election with only the top vote getters." A special rule could limit what names can appear on the ballot. It could not limit the eligibility of anyone. That is why I said "sort of."

It would depend on how the member was suspended. Was it due to a provision in the bylaws, i.e. you can't vote if you don't pay your dues? Was it due to disciplinary action? We will need more information (and a quote from the bylaws if the former). There are circumstances where there will be different answers. Also not that the rules could be suspended to let even a non-member enter into debate and/or make motions. Even if the suspended member could not make motions and enter into debate, the rules could be suspended to permit him to do so (see p.263, fn.).

Assuming that absentee voting is permitted in the bylaws, I agree. By saying that members may vote by absentee ballot, the bylaws have created a right for members to vote by absentee ballot. The proper method is to hold the runoff at an adjourned meeting and give members the opportunity to vote by absentee ballot.

Sort of. A special rule could limit who appears on the (second) ballot, i.e. the two candidates with the most votes. It would not, however, prohibit write-ins.

I am very sorry to hear of his passing. My condolences to his family.