J. J.

You would raise a point of order if you think there was a rule violation. Strictly by RONR, action must take place at a meeting. Many organizations do, however, permit conference call meetings in their bylaws, which supersedes RONR. There may also be a notice requirement. A definite answer cannot be given without reading your bylaws. Nobody here has read them. You may wish to contact either the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) or American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP) for a referral for a professional parliamentarian. NAP: https://www.parliamentarians.org/ AIP: https://aipparl.org/

While you referred to a bylaw amendment, if the bylaws are silent regarding nominations, then a special rule could prohibit self nominations.

Tom, congratulation on revealing yourself. George, I'm cited in both court papers and a book as "J.J." I'm starting to think J. J. is my real name.

You can define cause. "Cause" basically means the reasons for removing some member, not how the member is removed. Unless your rules say otherwise, you would still have to follow the rules in RONR to remove a member.

It may not be a separate issue. Strictly referring to RONR, generally, any number of items of business may be adopted without prior notice. Unless there was some rule that governs your board, a motion "That we purchase ______" would not require previous notice. If there was some rule that your society meets on a specific day, and you meet at least quarterly, notice of the meeting is not required by RONR. As you are a possibly a public body, there is a likelihood that notice is required by statute. I previously noted, that is a legal question, and should be referred to an attorney licensed in your state.

They are not the only telegraph company. https://www.itelegram.com/ They are sent, at times, for a more formal notification.

I would be a bit concerned about a legal requirement for notification for an adjourned meeting. That is a matter for the government's solicitor.

Do the bylaws actually say that previous notice must be given at that previous meeting?

A member may change his vote (when not by ballot) up until the chair announces the result. He may change it, during the same session, after that, with the unanimous consent of the assembly (p. 408-09). He cannot change it after the meet has adjourned.

Could you quote the bylaw for the general body meeting is to be held and the notice that is required.

If possible, reschedule the meeting and give correct notice.

Does the board the trial body for the member? Is board action required to begin to process the charge?

In principle, I agree. A rule in the bylaws, even one that is not in the nature of a rule of order, may provide for its own suspension (p. 13, ll. 5-9, p. 263, ll. 4-5). A rule that said, "Only full members may vote, unless the assembly, by a three-fifths vote, suspends this rule," would permit the assembly to suspend the rule and permit persons other than full members to vote. Such a suspension would not "amend" the bylaws. Likewise, a rule that said, without additional qualification, that the assembly may "suspend any of the rules, including the rules of order, for the consideration of any item of business," means that the assembly has the ability to suspend any rule. I will, however, reserve judgment in this case. While we are told that there the exceptions, we do not know what these exceptions are. There may be something, even in another section of the bylaws, that might create an exception and prohibit the rule relating to who can vote from being suspended in this instance. I will slightly disagree with my colleague Richard's claim that a motion to suspend the rules would necessarily be undebatable in all circumstances. The motion to suspend the rules could be raised as an incidental main motion and, as such, be debatable (p. 74, ll. 17-23).

I'm not clear on your position. I'm not even certain if there is a point of disagreement. I'm not seeing a distinction between "was not worthy of censure" and " 'no longer' worthy of censure," at least from a procedural standpoint. My position is that an adopted motion "that ____ be censured," remains in effect and could be subject to Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted. I hold that the adopted motion "that ____ be censured," could be rescinded in the future. I would also hold that the adopted motion "that ____ be censured," could be amended by a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted; in that case the assembly could amend the motion by striking out "censure" and inserting "commend."

There is a House precedent for expunging censure, in the cases of former Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, and Rep. John Young Brown (Hinds' Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States,1908, p. 909). Cameron, whose famous quote was, "An honest politician is one who, when he bought, will stay bought, "might have actually deserved it.

Maybe they do feel nasty. I don't want to get into motives. The question is if the censure continues. Does Sam now have a different "status," i.e. is he now someone under censure? At least in terms of the Senate, the answer is yes: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Reverses_A_Presidential_Censure.htm Doing a Google search, the practice looks like a motion to censure can be rescinded.

It is Sam that is being censured, not the action itself. Sam was also not declared a great guy; Jim was. What if the assembly decides that Sam's is not longer worthy of censure? Just rescinding it would not indicate that they think Sam acted properly; the assembly is saying that they no longer take a position on Sam's action.

I think that the effect could, at least, be continuing. For example, if the assembly were adopt a motion "that Jim is a great guy," does the effect of that motion still remain? At the next session, doesn't the assembly still consider Jim a great guy? If the assembly adopted the motion "that Sam be censured," does the effect of than motion remain? At the next session, doesn't the assembly still consider Sam censured?

There should be a distinction made between a motion to censure and the penalty of censure imposed in disciplinary action. A motion to censure, i.e. "That ______ be censured for _______," is a main motion that does nothing more than express opinion of the assembly. "Censure" may also be a penalty as a result of disciplinary action. A person charged in a disciplinary action may have his rights to vote suspended untila trial. Further, a penalty could be "That ____ be censured and that his rights of membership be suspended for ______ ." The assumption is that this was a motion to censure the board member; that is what it sound like from the initial description. If it was not a motion, but a penalty, the answer may be different.

The book is far from useless; the exceptions are listed, in many cases on the same pages you cited.

I would suggest that you look at p. 343, ll. 20-22, and p. 111, l. 22-23. The prohibition does not apply to motions to amend something previously adopted, which a bylaw amendment it. Also, p. 406, ll. 25-30, notes that a member's right to vote may be limited by they bylaws. The bylaws may remove a member's right to vote in some specific circumstances. It short, the bylaw may limit the ability of a member to vote and a motion to amend the bylaws, but its very nature, is a motion to amend something previously adopted. Your citations do not apply.

I have to disagree on this point, especially if the "continuation" runs into another session. A motion to "that the assembly go into executive session," is a privileged motion and does not adhere the motion discussed in executive session. For example, assume that the motion "to buy the Flemm Building," is considered in executive session at the October meeting, and postponed and made a special order for the November meeting. The assembly returns to regular session. In November, in order to consider the motion "to buy the Flemm Building" in executive session, the assembly would have to adopt a fresh motion to go into executive session. If, at the November meeting, the assembly would chose not to go into executive session; that would be tantamount to assembly releasing the information. I agree with Mr. Brown that there are circumstances where it would not violate the executive session to openly discuss the topic of the executive session, especially in some "lobbying" circumstances. A member that was in execution session in October, could certainly express his opinion that the group should buy the Flemm Building. He could not, however, note that a motion "to buy the Flemm Building" was under consideration at the October meeting or that it would be a special order at the November meeting.

There is a fairly detail description online (pp. 19-22): https://issuu.com/parliamentarians/docs/nap_np_78-4-www It even had a real world example.

Since the motion is a main motion, it is fully debatable. The mover may explain how it works.

Ah, no. "When a motion proposes to assign a task or refer a matter to a committee when no question is pending, ... (p. 168, ll. 29-33, emphasis added)." You might want to check out this thread: