Dan Honemann

No rule in RONR requires that voting in disciplinary proceedings be by ballot if no member demands a ballot vote.

I think it should be assuming it was adopted along with the bylaws.

I don't see how this question can be answered without additional facts. What rules are in place relating to the preparation of these ballots? Who prepares them and how and when are they distributed?

Is it clear that offering such a motion falls within the assigned function of this committee? If so, then I think the motion should be moved in behalf of the committee as a part of its report. If not, the committee should not be making it at all.

I suspect that if Mr. Gerber's response doesn't satisfy, nothing will.

Fine. Let's let it go at that. 🙂

And forget about your letter.

You can make your motion to amend or rescind (if you have said exactly what this is I'm afraid that I missed it), and if it is not adopted you can give notice that you will make the same motion again at your next regular meeting.

If your secretary doesn't send out notices of your regular monthly meetings (RONR says that he should unless you have some rule providing otherwise), then I'm afraid that the only way for you to give previous notice is to do so at a meeting.

If, under the rules of the organization, a valid call can still be sent out to all members, then notice may be included in that call.

I think that, in either of these instances, no previous notice can be given.

Oh, perhaps if the specifics are provided we might be able to assist.

No need for a motion. If a person does not seek office, all he need do is say so.

I agree that, based solely upon what has been posted, this committee appears to have no authority to rule any proposed amendment out of order, but I think it would be entirely proper for it to report a recommendation that a proposed amendment not be adopted for the reason that, if adopted, it will conflict with another provision in the bylaws that will remain in effect.

I'm afraid that you will find nothing in Robert's Rules to help you out in this regard.

Well, this is something I said in an earlier thread: "If and when a point of order is raised concerning the effectiveness of the one day late notice given for the proposed bylaw amendment, S. Nelson's organization's assembly will have to decide for itself whether or not there has been what amounts to substantial compliance with its rule, and if so, whether or not such compliance is sufficient to permit its consideration and adoption of the proposed amendment. The assembly's decision will be final unless, of course, the amendment is declared to be adopted and someone feels that his ox has been gored to such an extent that he is willing to sue, in which event the question may ultimately be decided by a court. The court, of course, will be looking at applicable contract law, not parliamentary law, to reach its decision." But since I'm just a dumb lawyer who don't know nothing about parliamentary law, pay me no mind. 🙂

If by this you mean that the chair is interrupting you as you speak in order to counter what you are saying, then this behavior is not at all in order, and should not be tolerated even in small boards. If other members don't seem to be bothered by it, however, there may be very little that you can do about it as a practical matter.

I say again, complaining about this sort of thing here in this forum won't help.

Well, complaining about it here in this forum won't help.

But nothing in RONR prohibits the presiding officer at a meeting of a board using "small board" rules from participating in debate.

No.

"Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty. " —HENRY M. ROBERT

No confusion is caused by what is said in RONR on page 104, lines 24-31. That wording is perfectly clear, and I certainly wouldn't expect to see it changed any time soon.

"The only business that can be transacted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 93)

I am rather surprised that the ambiguous situation which apparently continues to exist due to rejection seven years ago of a motion to reaffirm has not long since been resolved as a consequence of a point of order being raised, leading to a ruling, perhaps followed by an appeal, all as described in Sections 23 and 24 of RONR. I do not agree, however, that this could have been done, or should now be done, simply by raising a point of order asserting that the decision made by the assembly not to reaffirm the previously adopted motion is null and void, giving rise to a continuing breach. No point of order having been raised at the time the motion to reaffirm was made, it is now too late to raise such a point of order. Instead, what should happen, and ordinarily does happen, is that, at some point in time, an action is proposed to be taken, or is taken, relying upon the continuing validity or invalidity of the originally adopted motion, and a point of order is then timely raised concerning the validity of this subsequent action, necessitating a ruling as to the continuing validity or invalidity of the originally adopted motion. As I said, I am surprised that this has not happened long ago. Perhaps the rule should be that rejection of a motion to reaffirm is null and void, giving rise to a continuing breach, but I am not willing to agree that it is now the rule.