Joshua Katz

You seem to be asking a few questions here. First, you're adopting the viewpoint that there's some objective answer that, yes, something is violating your bylaws/laws, and you want to know why an appeal would be permissible. However, that's not accurate - these are matters of interpretation, and opinions vary. If you think there's a violation of law, you can go to court - where, again, you're subject to the opinion of a judge and/or jury deciding the matter. It's turtles all the way down - everything gets done by humans at every stage, there's no universal computer that, at some level, gives the "right" answers. It becomes a matter of making compelling arguments. Next, you ask what points can be brought on appeal. As was explained above, though, an appeal is just a motion - it requires a motion and second. Unlike in courts, where an appeal has to rest on specific grounds, a parliamentary appeal simply says "I think the chair ruled incorrectly" and seeks a vote from the assembly - the ultimate authority - on the matter. Of course, a successful appeal will probably require explaining why the mover thinks the chair ruled incorrectly.

No one...or, I guess, anyone who can get away with it? Would you mind providing some context? If it helps, your bylaws (and by extension, your constitution, which outranks it) may not be suspended, except for provisions providing for their own suspension, and provisions which are clearly in the nature of rules of order. There is no individual, though (unless your Constitution says otherwise) with a special power to ignore your rules.

That's not clear to me, because it's not clear to me what your law says (and we aren't going to interpret it). It seems to me that the argument you wanted to make is that it violates your bylaws, see a in your list. Either way, though, the presiding officer can make rulings without a point of order being raised (or you can enlist someone else to raise one for you to rule on). As a good presiding officer, you will not then let the **** fly, but rather keep the assembly in order. You can ask if there's an appeal, which is recommended when a ruling is expected to be controversial. The power is in the membership. That's why they can appeal your rulings. You have the power to make initial rulings, though - with the final decision always resting with the assembly. What we're talking about here has nothing to do with power to discipline, but rather the task of presiding. The solution to bylaws problems is not usually discipline, but rather points of order. When you are presiding, it is your job to enforce all applicable rules, not just the bylaws.

A point of order regarding a continuing breach can be raised at any time. I had forgotten that you are the chair for company meetings. I suppose you can just raise it as a ruling, expect it to get appealed, and then, in the debate on the appeal, you are entitled to speak to your ruling.

Legal questions are outside the scope of this forum. In terms of the parliamentary question, it's largely one of bylaw interpretation, which is also outside the scope of this forum. The company will need to interpret it by asking whether the tasks you list (selling tickets, helping you, etc.) fall under the category of "duties of a member," which will depend, in turn, on the duties imposed on members by your bylaws. If you believe that he did not qualify for removal under this rule, then you can raise a point of order to that effect, and appeal if necessary, since the removal of a member would be a continuing breach. But you'll need to make the case that, in fact, he had performed the duties of a member that year.

Additionally, unless there are other rules to the contrary, this infringes on the principle that committees get to decide if others may attend their meetings. Regarding 2, an inquorate meeting can't do anything, but people who were attending such a meeting can talk about whatever they want once it is over. The contents of committee reports should be adopted at properly called, quorate meetings, but the report can also contain items separately agreed to by all committee members.

But that one was gneisser...

Is there any chance of banning the person who is making every single thread show up as unread?

No rule in RONR would prohibit it.

No, I have no need to spy on my spouse. Thank you though.

Well, I can't really follow the scenario, but regardless, there is no rule in RONR by which you can force a recusal. One who has an interest in the matter not in common with the others should not vote. In my experience, people tend to have a more expansive view of what constitutes a conflict. Finally, a single member cannot force that a vote be retaken as a roll call vote.

It would seem to me that the rules that apply here would be the same as the rules that apply for scope of notice. For example, if the original proposal were to raise dues by $50, it would be in order to amend it to $40, but not to $60.

No, violating rules for any length of time does not change the fact that it is a violation of the rules, and that the custom falls on raising a point of order. It does not take a majority vote to follow the rules.

I would think the rules for such amendments would be the same as those for scope of notice.

In RONR, members are those who can vote. Any limitations on voting that require membership a certain length of time prior to the meeting would have to be found in your bylaws.

These two answers seem, to me, to conflict. It can't be redundant if it changes the rule, and it does - in particular, turning an 'or' into an 'and.'

I can't really tell if the Employment Board is in the nature of a board or a committee, but it doesn't really matter - if it has no power delegated to it, it has no power. It's unclear to me, from what you've written, how it manages to have the power to oversee staff at all.

What powers does this committee/board have? Is it established in your bylaws?

Where do the words in parenthesis come from? If there's something in your rules that makes those 3 year terms, that might change my opinion. From what you've presented so far, though, my opinion would be that they were not elected to three year terms in those positions, but rather one year terms.

Is the committee empowered to make this decision, or isn't it? Your latest post makes it sound a lot more like the committee makes recommendations rather than having power. If it has power, how did it get it? If from the board, does your board have the authority to delegate its powers?

So it seems your board, which has staggered terms, elects the officers. It is up to your organization to interpret its bylaws, but it seems to me that an annual meeting is held each year, and that at the annual meeting officers are elected. Is there a separate provision for term of office for officers? If not, it would seem to me that, if they are elected each year, that is how often they are vacated. I don't think it sounds strange or disruptive. After all, why shouldn't the new directors be able to both seek office and have input on the officers, all else being equal? It would strike me as odd if a person's term of office as, say, secretary, could be 1, 2, or 3 years, depending solely on at what point in their term as a director they were elected to the position - which, in turn, would depend on when it became vacant.

True, but the question asked for my thoughts (in my capacity as a person, anyway).

That can't be right. Your bylaws say nothing about your officers, how they're elected, and their term of office? For instance, what is the election process for your officers? Who are they elected by? What is the term of office of these people?

1. I think term limits should come from voters, not rules. (Personal opinion.) 2. "succeed themselves more than two consecutive full terms in the same office" is unclear. 3. Unless the nominating committee can find no suitable...what? 4. How do you enforce this new rule? Presumably, you'd have to check that the nominating committee could find no suitable (replacement), as opposed to simply not wanting to. How do you figure that out? 5. What do you mean to say by "approval of the congregation?" Majority vote? Majority of entire congregation? Something else?

This will depend on the way terms and positions are defined in your bylaws.