J. J.

This would apply motions that change the rules, i.e. a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. It would not apply to all main motions. For rules of order (p. 15) , RONR mandates a two-thirds vote with previous notice or a majority of the entire membership. There nothing improper about adopting this rule.

Wisdom is not requirement in determining if a motion is in order. You might look at "Follow, Flight, or Flee," National Parliamentarian, Fourth Quarter, 2013, which touches on unwise motions.

Why? The society could borrow the money.

Nothing in RONR requires it.

I disagree, based on the wording at least, and based on your example. A member, Mary, gives notice to amend a special rule that authorizes standing committees by striking out the sections that authorize standing committees D and E, i.e. Sections D and E. I would see no problem with Mary moving to strike out Section D and not mentioning Section E. That would not prevent another member, once Mary's motion is disposed of, from moving to strike out Section E. If the assembly wants to consider both in one motion, and Mary won't modify hers, the rules could be suspended to consider striking out sections D and E in one motion. The reverse is correct. Mary could move to strike out sections D and E and the question could be divided. Also, what if Mary does not make the motion, Sally does? Mary is not there or Sally and Mary want Sally to make the motion. I don't know of any rule that says the person who gave notice must be the one to move the motion.

Mo,it doesn't. The chair may move, and debate any debatable motion proposed on behalf of a committee.

It is standard procedure for the committee chair to move a motion coming out of a committee (p. 507). The impartiality requirement refers tothe person presiding over the meeting where the committee report was made, i.e. the president. The committee chair, if a member, may fully participate. He also has preference in recognition for speaking on the motion.

If you are talking about the text of RONR, p. 595 covers it sufficiently. If you are taking about something in the notice that indicates the motion is amendable, the members are suppose to consult RONR for that inform. Let's assume that two different motions are proposed. One rescinding a plane vanilla main motion, while the other is a special rule of order. The first, in this circumstance, may be adopted by majority vote. The second requires, in this circumstance a two-thirds vote or a majority of the entire membership. You don't have to inform the members of that difference. The member could assume that the special rule requires only a majority vote, and he is sure it will get that majority. He favors the motion, but is sure that the special rule will get a majority. It fails, but gets a majority vote. Can the member legitimately say, "The notice should have told me that a majority vote was not enough?" No. The member must make some effort to understand the process. At a meeting, he Parliamentary Inquiry, be he chose not to attend. He could get a copy of RONR and read it. He could ask someone, the president, a knowledgeable member, a professional parliamentarian or look on the Internet, especially this site. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. With the caveat that the bylaws. Put me down as "FOR."

This is within the rules, however. The assembly does not have to do what the absentees. It, in some cases, must give them fair warning of what could happen. The absentee knows that with the notice of an increase from 10 to 50, the result will be something between 10 and 50, inclusive. If we wants to make that it remains at 10, he better show up.

In theory, however, the member is suppose to know that an amendment to the proposed motion within scope is in order. In other words, if the current amount is 10 and notice is given to increase that to 50, the member is suppose to know that any number greater than 10 but not greater than 50 would be in order and could be adopted. Another member may assume that there will not be a quorum and that the increase could not be adopted. If there is a quorum, his assumption was wrong, but that would not invalidate anything that meeting did. In theory, the members are suppose to know that an a motion requiring notice can be amended within scope of notion.

I have to ask this, but could you give an example? I'm having a difficult time seeing an amendment that is within scope, but not germane to the question.

Agreeing, but noting that it would require a special rule.

No, but the motion should be shown in the minutes of the meeting where the correction was made.

A motion to censure is not the reverse of a motion to ratify. A motion "That _____ be censured for.... " is the expression of an opinion; that is it in this case.

The board could express displeasure about an individual, censure him, even if the assembly ratified some action that individual took. The assembly could rescind that censure.

I know of no rule that would prevent a board from censuring anyone. If that board is subordinate to an assembly, then the assembly can rescind or amend that motion. The only time when the board could do something "solely on behalf of the board," is when the bylaws grant the board sole authority. Except in the latter case, everything the board does is on behalf of the association.

I will agree with the exception of nonmember officers. The text seems to cover of officers whether or not they are members. I would think, however, that the time used up in answering the question would be deducted from the member asking the question.

I would recommend that separate minutes be kept and the point of order and postponement be noted, both as a matter of form and of substance. In terms of form, RONR does state that what happens in executive session should be kept in separate minutes (unless released by the assembly) and that points of order and the temporary disposition of a main motion are to be listed. The only way that I can see to comply those rules is to put them into the minutes of the executive session. In terms of substance, the motion might have been sent into executive session because of the "embarrassing amendment," but the motion stayed in executive session once that amendment was no longer pending. There may be a reason for that.

It could be considered a matter a decorum. It breaks no rule in RONR that says that members must be clothed. I'm fairly certain that most societies (excluding nudist groups) could order a member to cover or be removed. There are a few organizations that require male member to wear a jacket and tie.

It does, however, indicate that there are situations where it is in order. There have been some circumstances mentioned on this threat where the would be in order (though not necessarily desirable). Welcome back!!!

In such a case, the chair could change his mind. The rule exists to protect a member who is not willing to waive his secrecy in voting, which would not be that case. There would be the possibility of reconsideration. Technically, the chair has voted on the prevailing side. He may leave the meeting, leaving no one else to be able to reconsider.

But it does speak about the kind of a rule it cannot be. There are several rules in RONR that are procedural in nature, but cannot be enacted by a special rule. A few of them do not violate any stated fundamental principle of parliamentary law, nor of the rights of absentees nor a basic right of an individual member. I can think of at least one fundamental principle of parliamentary law that could be overridden by a special rule of order, the "one question at a time" rule. I would usually not recommend it, but it is possible.

I agree that, in itself, there is no fundamental principle of parliamentary that a majority should elect. However, I think that there may be an, admittedly unstated, fundamental principle of parliamentary law that by adopting a parliamentary authority the assembly is prohibited from doing certain things unless it authorizes those things in the bylaws. Those things are then not a rule in the nature of a rule order, because those things could not be adopted as a rule of order. In the case of committee members, I know of no rule in RONR that, in order to elect by a plurality, authorization in the bylaws is needed.

They might not be officers. That was my next question.

I agree with by fellow posters, but would add that the motion cannot remain on the table beyond the next session and that next session must be withinthe quarterly time interval.