Drake Savory

I'd say right here is your answer. The Board appoints the committee, not the property manager.

Is there a Vice-President? Because under most bylaws they would take over if the President is removed from the Chair.

I think timeliness needs to account for a moment to process what just happened.

"You may speak to your motion." In my scenario it is followed by "I believe this would help ..." "Mr. President, I rise to a Point of Order. The Chair has not stated the question."

Here is a question related to this thread: Maker makes a motion. It is seconded. Chair starts debate. After a sentence or two (debate has started but timely objection). Member makes a Point of Order that the Chair did not state the question. Chair rules the Point to be well taken. The maker immediately asks to withdraw the motion before the Chair can properly state the question. Is the motion withdrawn?

It could be for very large values of 2.

Rule 45:5 directly says they can.

And it should be noted that a convention's standing rules only need a majority vote to Suspend, not a 2/3 vote IF you wish RONR rules (assuming that is the adopted parliamentary authority) to apply. If the RONR rules gets in the way as well, then it would need a 2/3 vote. Rule 59:37. In this case, I believe a majority vote is sufficient. Is there a rule in RONR that would interfere with a motion to amend the committee report?

I agree to this. I would have it be that the Parliamentarian shall be in attendance at the request of the Chair including executive sessions. That way it is a right of the Chair to have an advisor at their discretion.

You can rescind the election if they have not been notified 35:6(c)

My experience with questions on this board and organizations I belong to in dealing with honorary members, quasi-members, affiliate members, members that do not have the right to do X, etc. that members often do not understand what it means to be a member.

That is a crucial question. Let's assume someone has been in office for 2 terms and you want a 3 term limit. Do you want ... Them to serve at most one more term? Them to serve at most three more terms (five total)? Be exempt from term limits since they were first elected when there were not any limits (like the 22nd Amendment)?

How can the resigning member retake their seat if it is not vacant? Wouldn't the motion that filled the vacancy have to be rescinded first?

I disagree. There are people that an organization may want to have the right to attend meetings but yet in no way want to be considered a member. For example, a planning commission may want the city mayor or city attorney to be allowed in all meetings due to their specialized knowledge that can assist them.

But don't we see issues when members don't have all of the right of membership? We're discussing one now in the other forum where only 60 members out of 160 can vote so how can you get a majority of the membership. Again, why should the parliamentarian a member? What purpose does it solve that cannot be solved by simply giving them the right to attend all meetings?

Why was the Parliamentarian made a member to begin with considering they Were not elected Should not debate Should not vote ???

Did the Chair allow debate? If so, then it was a motion to Postpone Definitely despite what everyone called it. If not, then it was a motion to Lay on the Table, however it does not come up before the assembly automatically. It needs the motion to Take From the Table. Assuming your next meeting comes within a quarter interval, if it is not taken from the table by the end of the next meeting, the motion dies.

A couple of things here. I can kind of see where the Chair would want the debate to be germane to the actual motion to recommend to the membership - they are not voting to approve the amendment(s) themselves but if they should go to the membership. But the problem is: It is the Board Chair and not the Committee Chair that ensures the debate is germane to the motion. Can you really debate on whether or not to recommend the amendments without getting into the content of the amendments themselves? Who (or rather what) assigned the Board as the gatekeepers for bylaws amendments? If the motion to recommend fails, does that mean the membership does not get to vote on them? Or is it simple telling the membership when they vote on the amendments that the Board does not support them? "If you vote no, you must ask yourself why you didn't take part in the bylaws review." If the committee chair states this in a meeting, would the statement be out of order?

It sounds like they want 2/3 super-majority to be different than a regular 2/3 vote. While a 2/3 vote is 2/3 of those voting, they want a super-majority of 2/3 of the members there. So someone can pull out a calculator and count 35 members present and do 35 * 2 ÷ 3 =23.33333..... . Then round down to 23 and count to see if 23 or more voted yes. Probably a math major came up with that plan.

Given that the Chair is supposed to be unbiased, wouldn't a person with a conflict of interest be the last person you want as the Chair?

What if the attorney's opinion reflects his interpretation of the law? Then it would take precedence over the bylaws. But I would hope this letter would say, "The law says ..."

I was using the inclusive OR there

So it sounds like it could be done through an amendment adopted by majority vote or Suspend the Rules by 2/3 vote.

Any non-standard voting threshold should be in the bylaws or special rules of order (48:10). However this is not a requirement as it is not "must" be in the bylaws. 44:7 also talks about modifying the vote threshold through rule, but again does not require that rule in the bylaws or special rules of order. To throw a complication in there, it is basic parliamentary law to change an action requires a larger threshold than taking the action to begin with (xlix - l). Already there would be a problem if through special rule an action requires 80% of the vote yet could be rescinded by a 2/3 vote. So here is the question. As part of a main motion, is it in order for a member to move to Suspend the Rules and require a unanimous vote?

Can you elaborate on that?