Joshua Katz

Yes, it may be brought up again at any future session. The threshold is unchanged, so presumably a majority.

Well, if you have redlines, you could move each amendment as, well, an amendment, rather than a revision. Presumably, notice is required, and then amendments would be limited to the scope of notice. That might take some time though. If you want to move a revision, you can't frame the motion in any particular way to get the result you want, but the assembly can adopt a special rule of order for the session. Ultimately, the assembly is in charge of its proceedings, so the only way to get the outcome you desire is for the assembly to decide on it.

Is the committee chair not a member of the body that was meeting? In any event, I think we can say definitively that any point of order would have needed to be raised at the time.

I'm not clear what this means. A committee, as you say here, makes recommendations. If it wants those recommendations to actually guide actions, it needs to make them in the form of a motion. If the committee doesn't want to make such a motion, it's not clear to me that it is recommending anything, since by definition a recommendation is something you think should be done. I think the problem here may be a misunderstanding on the part of the committee chair as to how committee recommendations are advanced in a deliberative assembly.

It's not clear to me that a non-member cannot suggest a bylaw amendment, in the sense of saying "hey, I think this would be a good idea."

I don't have the text in front of me, but doesn't RONR say something to the effect of there being two people needed: a presiding officer and a secretary? If so, doesn't that suggest they aren't the same person?

Neither were right. The assembly can adopt a motion to reopen nominations, or it cannot. The nominating committee cannot stop it, and the President cannot make them. Also, please ask your question in a new topic. As far as slates are concerned, see the reply above from our dear departed colleague.

Announcements made during a meeting are generally not recorded in the minutes, either.

That is not at all clear to me.

From what I've seen, there's no ex-officio membership at issue here. It sounds to me like the ED happens to be a person who also holds a voting membership (in some body or another). If that's right, then the ED can vote, but the reason why has nothing to do with ex-officio membership; it's because the person who is the ED happens to also be a person who can vote. Conceivably, the next ED might not also have a membership, and so might not be able to vote (or attend without permission of the meeting body).

No, unless your bylaws permit it. The rule in RONR is one vote per person, not per role. Your bylaws govern if they differ, though.

If the ED is a member of the body that is meeting, then she has voting rights. But if the bylaws don't say anything, she doesn't have those rights as an ex-officio anything, she has them simply as a member.

Well, any procedural provisions, anyway.

No, because the minutes should record what was done, not what was said. Discussion should not appear in the minutes. Assuming the motions named people, yes, because the minutes should record the exact language of the motions made at the meeting. Do your bylaws empower the board to conduct discipline? No, there is no RONR requirement to make any minutes public, except that the membership can require the board to produce its minutes. That is, of course, unless your rules or an applicable law say otherwise. Yes, the minutes of executive session should be approved in executive session. The minutes of that executive session, which will be short since all that will happen will be approving the minutes, can be approved within the same executive session so as to avoid an infinite regress.

Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I still don't see it. What's the ruling? If the assembly says "we're going to have open discussion" and the chair says "for 3 minutes," I don't consider that a ruling, but simply an effort by the chair to impose his will. If the chair says "we're going to have open discussion for 3 minutes," I'd say the same. If no one raises a point of order/appeal, okay, fine, but what precedent does it set, exactly? My issue is that I don't see there being a ruling at all.