Joshua Katz

Sure - by following whatever the process happens to be. It appears to involve the Executive Committee: And the Executive Committee appears unready to do so. The OP's conclusion is: Now, if we're talking about the words, I agree, and I expect you do too. But if we're talking about the concept, I disagree, and it now appears you do too. The question that remains is - can the assembly remove the chair if the EC does not wish to do so? I think the answer to that will depend on several sections of the bylaws, and is perhaps more than we want to go into here.

Why? Do you think the bylaw is ambiguous?

I don't see why. If the organization wants to allow delegation, why should they change?

I don't see any reason this is not the case. It is appropriate (according to RONR) to consider intent when a provision is ambiguous. But I'm not seeing any ambiguity in this provision. It is always the case that, ultimately, only your organization can interpret your bylaws. My opinion, as above, though, is that the provision is clear. Okay, but he may delegate as to any matter. Suppose there are 10 matters. Each one falls under "any matter" so where would you cut it off? The ninth? The first?

What do the bylaws say about the term of office of the President?

Where does the special meeting language appear? Does the article in which it appears yield any clues as to its applicability?

I'm happy with it for now. If I ever get challenged on a parliamentary mistake I made here at a job interview, I'll change my mind.

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. I think your interpretation has the benefit that it doesn't make the rule run contrary to its clear intent: i.e. not making it easier to speak when the rule is clearly meant to make it harder. Do you think suspending it has any effect that wouldn't have happened had the assembly simply used the rule itself to give permission to speak?

A bylaw that is clearly in the nature of a rule of order may be suspended. As a result, it is logical that the chair would rule that a bylaw may be suspended if he's also ruling that it's a rule of order. I'm not sure why you have this rule, since non-members have no right to speak anyway. I'm also not clear what suspension would mean. If you suspend the rule (by a higher margin than an ordinary motion) then...the staff member can speak. But you could have achieved the same end, at least from what I've seen so far, simply by moving to hear from the staff member. In any case, it appears to be clearly in the nature of a rule of order, and hence suspendable. This is incorrect. There are two types of bylaws which may be suspended - those clearly in the nature of a rule of order, and those which provide for their own suspension. The rule in question appears to be a rule of order, and also (pending precise language) appears to allow for its own suspension via a main motion. So, two questions: first, please give us the exact language of the rule. Second - what exactly happens, at past meetings, when you suspend this rule, that wouldn't have happened by simply moving to allow the staff member to speak?

Well, that answers the amendment part - but special rules of order still lose to bylaws (when they're in a fight, that is). So I still think your rule is inoperative.

If this is truly a standing rule, it seems to me to contradict the rule in your bylaws that quorum is 5% of membership, and thus to be inapplicable in any event, suspended or no. Others may disagree, so stay tuned. That said, again if it truly is a standing rule, that is not the requirement for amendment: instead, it's a 2/3 vote OR a majority vote with notice. But, setting that aside and assuming your rule is valid, it seems to me that it is a rule meant to protect absentees and may not be suspended.

I think that language is contradictory. What you're trying to do is fine, but I'd suggest fine tuning the language. As written, it says that multiple motions will be one motion, which is a contradiction in terms. Perhaps something like "proposals A-Z will be moved in a single motion. They may be divided at the demand of a single member." But, again, stay tuned for others who may say I'm off-base here.

Then my guess is you can politely decline to turn over hard to interpret notes, or even unapproved minutes, if you so desire. But that may be subject to the political winds in your organization. The point is, they are free to ask, and you are free to provide them, or not, per RONR.

I agree. The real answer to whether the secretary needs to turn them other probably depends, though, on just who these advisors are. That might not be parliamentary law, but just real-world stuff. If the advisors are paid employees who give the organization advice, the secretary will have little problem saying no (if he doesn't feel like turning them over; if he does, he'll have little problem saying yes). If it's, say, a student organization, and the advisors are "adults" who give direction more than advice, he'll probably need to turn them over.

Stay tuned for others, but I'd say yes and no. Previous notice, if given between meetings, needs to be exact language (I think, I don't have the book in front of me) and so would need to show what the motion actually looks like. But the members are free to demand division at the meeting.