Dan Honemann

Well, that sentence on page 486 is referring to offenses occurring during a board meeting, but there should be no doubt but that the executive board of an ordinary society cannot expel a member unless the bylaws very clearly grant it that authority.

Nothing in RONR gives a board any sort of veto power over the election of new board members by an organization's membership.

I agree with Mr. Martin, although I think the answer will be different in the case of a committee created by a motion adopted by the membership's assembly.

J.J., I'm afraid that this discussion has already been allowed to wander too far afield. If you want to raise additional questions, I suggest you start your own thread.

Yes it is; I've already said as much. The sentence on page 486, lines 17-19 , means exactly what it says.

Such a special rule of order obviously conflicts with the rule in RONR found on page 132, lines 12-17.

No, it is not correct. A special rule of order such as the one which you have quoted above does not conflict with any of the rules in RONR.

This question was asked by the OP: "Can a board make a special rule of order or implement a rule on an agreement of some kind that says that a member can never bring up a past decision for reconsideration?" Some subsequent responses seem to question the correctness of this response by Mr. Martin, but they shouldn't have.

These appointments do not need to be ratified unless the bylaws say that they must.

My guess is that, in those sections in the bylaws where it makes a difference whether a director was "elected" or "appointed", "appointed" refers to directors who are appointed by the board, but my guess doesn't count for much.

As far as RONR is concerned, there is no such thing as a motion "to move the bill for discussion", but in any event one would assume that it (the motion, that is, not the bill) would be voted on after all debate on it has ended.

In view of the fact that the business to which you refer was a motion to change the method of amending the constitution, it would appear that this was itself a motion to amend the constitution, assuming that the constitution sets forth, as it should, the procedure which must be followed in order to amend it. Was the prescribed procedure for amendment of the constitution followed?

I don't see any need to remove any committee chair's either, but Jay asks how to go about doing it if the need (or desire) to do so should arise.

Most in the 2FP prefer boilermakers during our meetings. I'm a Beefeater man myself.

Rules relating to the duties of officers in connection with the orderly transaction of business during meetings are rules of order (RONR, 11th ed., p. 15, ll. 7-11). Such rules, if contained within the bylaws, may be suspended unless the bylaws prohibit their suspension (p. 263, ll. 1-7). And by the way, rules in the bylaws which are in the nature of rules of order are bylaws, not special rules of order.

Won't happen (at least for another decade or so).

It seems to me that the method of appointment described by Jay most closely resembles the method described in (c) on pages 494-95, as discussed in Mr. Martin's response.

The way you describe this, officers are not elected by the executive committee, they are appointed by the state chair, who then declares them elected without the committee having anything to say about it. My guess is that your rules do not authorize anything of the sort.

I can understand (and agree with) what is said in this sentence, except that the last six words mystify me. 🙂

I'm not at all certain about this. In any event, I suppose these questions will need to be resolved by use of the point of order and appeal process described in Sections 23 and 24 of RONR, unless your Committee has some other rules indicating otherwise.

The first thing I should do is refer you to FAQ #10. Nothing else that I say on this subject has any real significance. Having said that, I must say that I find the facts as stated a bit confusing. I assume that when you refer to "we" (your organization) you are referring to your state's Republican State Central Committee, and that this Committee is a "regional level" entity, as referred to in your initial post, so that proxy voting is allowed at its meetings, although there seems to be some doubt as to whether or not proxies can be used in an election to fill a vacancy in the office of Chairman. You tell us that: "The question that is lately come to light is the issue of people who want to send their proxy specifying who to vote for as chair. This would be something akin to a write in vote which is not allowed by our rules. With that information can you help me with this question? Can members send their proxies with someone who was able to attend the meeting but specify who that proxy vote is to be for? It is likely we will have two possibly three people running for chair." If a valid proxy directs that it is to be used to vote for the election of someone who is nominated, I don't see why this would be akin to a write-in vote. 

The magical number is not more than about a dozen, but this (for all relevant purposes) relates to the size of your Council. It has nothing to do with the size of your total membership.

The calendar listing appears to have been proper notice for the Candidates’ Forum and the Lunch, but it does not appear that either of these is intended to constitute a regular or special meeting of the membership convened for the purpose of transacting business.

Failure to include the name of the maker of a motion in the minutes does not invalidate the motion. The names of persons who seconded motions should not be included in the minutes.

Neither I nor RONR have said that objecting to a motion to make unanimous a ballot vote that was not unanimous (which is done by raising a point of order pointing out that such a motion is not in order) requires a disclosure of one's views on the matter that was voted on. What I and RONR both say is that being required to vote on such a motion does require a disclosure of one's views on the matter being voted on, which is the reason why such a motion is not in order.