J. J.

You could adopt a special rule of order that would create its own disciplinary procedure, which would not need to include those steps and could permit expulsion by a majority vote, without notice. I do agree with Mr. Katz's implication that such a rule may be unwise.

In terms of American English, "endorsement" means "an inscription (as a signature or notation) on a document or instrument; especially : an inscription usually on the back of a negotiable instrument that transfers or guarantees the instrument." An inscription would include, but not be limited to a signature, but should be something under the rules. Presumably, the document could have no lines to sign, but two members could sign the back or somehow "inscribe" it to guarantee that they support the application. The rule itself does not require signature lines at the bottom, but it does require some type of an inscription. Even if an application did not have signature lines, the rule would still require that it be signed or "inscribed.".

There isn't a really good definition of what a "rule." I would say that, broadly, a rule is something that governs the actions of the assembly. In that respect, custom is a rule. I would also not that p. 19, custom is contrasted with "written rules." To me, that indicates custom is an unwritten rule. It is also under the general heading of "Rules of an Assembly or Organization." In other words, if I were to give a list of the types of rules of an assembly, custom would be on the list, though at the bottom. It is more of a semantic distinction, and does not change how the rules work.

I would classify custom as being a type of rule, though a very low ranking one that can be easily changed. In your case, your assembly may follow the custom that self nominations are prohibited, until it decides that they are not prohibited. That sounds a bit trite, but it is actually the case.

You could amend your bylaws to permit it. Suspension of the rules applies to rules that exist solely within the meeting. A term of office almost always exists outside of the meeting context.

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!!!