Atul Kapur

What, exactly, do you expect the police will do? Your experience may be different, but I would be very surprised if the police would get involved with a dispute such as this unless there is an order from a judge. I has anyone gone over to their house in person? It is harder to ignore someone at the door then a phone call. If that does not work, then get a lawyer's advice as has been recommended above.

George, history thanks you. 🤣

No, the rule cannot be suspended because, as Mr Honemann has noted, you cannot suspend a rule that has an application beyond the current session and this rule affects the order of business of the next meeting. However, what you can do is to refer the matter to a committee with instructions to report back at the first meeting of the new board. Mr. Elsman thinks that's improper, but he's the only one who thinks that way. And Mr. Katz reminded us that you always have the option of just introducing the item as a new main motion at the first meeting.

I'd use the term "bungee-jumping" in and out of the meeting. Your board could pass a motion directing the president (and anyone else) to stop texting the member to call in. You, collectively, are tolerating and condoning this behaviour. It is in your collective power to stop it. I can only imagine havehow disruptive it is to your meeting to have to wait for him to call in - that may be the argument you use to convince the rest of your board. You may have to do this at each meeting until the member gets the hint.

I find this an unnecessarily strict reading of the sentence, which includes the word "generally", indicating that it is not the only acceptable purpose. "The subsidiary motion to Commit or Refer is generally used to send a pending question to a relatively small group of selected persons—a committee—so that the question may be carefully investigated and put into better condition for the assembly to consider." (p. 168, lines 3-7. Emphasis added) And, while we're talking about principles, I remind of this principle "Fundamentally, under the rules of parliamentary law, a deliberative body is a free agent—free to do what it wants to do with the greatest measure of protection to itself and of consideration for the rights of its members." (p. lii)

Still worth trying to so now, citing page 444 of RONR to back you up.

Guest Lizette, this forum (other than this particular thread) prefers that you ask a new question by creating a new post, rather than piggybacking on an old post. Normally @Richard Brown would be the one to tell you that. 😀

RONR says don't do that. p. 423, lines 25-35 (emphasis added)

From the terms that you use, it appears that this is a city council or other public body. It also appears that you have specific rules about how business gets put on the agenda. So, likely, you need to refer to those rules for an answer. From a RONR standpoint, it's not clear what your assembly intended by "tabling". If it was to Lay on the Table or Postpone to a Certain Time, then you should just be able to pick it up at the next meeting. If it was a way to kill the motion -- which is an improper use of Table -- then it can just be moved again at the next meeting. Again, that's according to RONR.

It depends on the exact wording of the motion adopted in 2008. If you did not vote to delete the portions that were not changed, then all you have to do is correct the secretarial errors in the bylaws. If, by chance, the 2008 motion actually did delete those sections, then you need to revise the bylaws at your first opportunity. In neither case do you amend the minutes of the 2008 meeting. The minutes are a record of what was done -- if you made a mistake at that meeting, the minutes should still record that accurately. And, in any case, amending the minutes doesn't change what happened (ie: you cannot revise history). Again, I recommend that you hire a professional parliamentarian to help you resolve this situation.

Sure, or in person. Why not? You can follow it up in writing if you wish. I think timeliness would be a very good thing, particularly if you want to ensure the election is complete or conduct another ballot at the same meeting.

I'm curious why you specified "in writing." I don't see that in the book. A member may be nominated without her consent -- according to some other threads on this forum (I am a fan of the custom of asking the nominee's consent). However the consent or lack thereof is relevant as it applies to her election, particularly if she is absent. If she consented beforehand, her election is final once the result is announced. If, as in this case, she has not consented to her candidacy, then the notification provision applies.

At the time of the election, she had withdrawn her consent. The Secretary informed the assembly of that fact. So when she is notified of her election, she immediately declines and the election is incomplete. She does not have to resign as she never held the office, no matter when the term begins. Same rule as in real life: if consent is withdrawn, there is no consent. Don't act without consent. No means No.

Nothing needs to be "crafted." It's clearly laid out in RONR. Not that it's the important point (see last two paragraphs below) but to get it out of the way: The motion to censure was a main motion. It was allowed to interrupt the proceedings because of its urgency. "To Raise a Question of Privilege is a device that permits a ... main motion relating to the rights and privileges of the assembly ... to be brought up for possible immediate consideration because of its urgency, while business is pending and the request or motion would otherwise be out of order." (RONR 11th ed., p. 224, ll. 25-30) and keep reading p. 225 as well. However, the section you really should be referring to is Section 61 "Discipline of members and guests" with particular focus on pp. 645-648 regarding "Breaches of order by members in a meeting". As this section makes clear, not only should the motion be recorded in the minutes, but so should the "objectionable or disorderly words used by the member" and "the declaration made by the chair in naming a member".

No. The action is who the committee nominates.

It is dangerous to make assumptions about law. Even worse to act on those assumptions without confirming. Even if the committee has to have minutes, RONR is clear that minutes should contain what is done, not how it is done. So, based on RONR, I wouldn't include all that detail in the minutes.

Better tonight than at some unknown time in the future One of the reasons you hire a professional parliamentarian: either to avoid these issues or to have someone to blame. 😀 Good luck tonight. Let us know how it goes, procedurally.

I have never heard that this is a "rule of thumb." Some statutes use this phrase in some of their sections to allow the bylaws to contain a different provision. But I have never heard that it is a blanket exemption. I believe that this is why Mr. Lages asked whether the statute you quote uses this language in reference to the section you are citing. You did not answer that question.

Put it in writing for the other member to read and move it accurately (and, if you have time, write some talking points for them, too). Also, find another member to second the amendment.

As you are already anticipating arguments about this potential ambiguity, fix it now to remove that ambiguity and make your intent explicit. Otherwise it will depend on whatever a majority of the assembly feels at the time the question is raised. I'm glad that you are (perhaps belatedly) reading the Sections on Bylaws and the Principles of Interpretation. I draw your attention to p. 589, lines 1-3, "The ambiguous or doubtful expression should be amended as soon as practicable." That time is now.

" after nominations have been closed, voting for that office takes place, or nominations for the next officer called for by the chair" if voting for all positions takes place at the same time. In either case, voting only occurs after the nominations have been closed. (RONR 11th ed., p. 436, lines 24-26) So, even if the ballots had been distributed, you wouldn't have been able to cast yours immediately and just leave.

Agreeing with Mr. Martin, I will just add that this is the procedure for any voluntary association. While I understand that academics may very well be less competent than the general population in many domains, 😁 I think that your association will be up to the task if required. Again, you should hire a professional parliamentarian to help you through that process.

As a first step, maybe someone could speak with him and suggest that he get some training and/or assistance from a professional parliamentarian. Or even hire a meeting parliamentarian to assist him during the meetings.

That may have been the intention, but we are told that the committee recommendation was defeated before the minority report was processed. That's what I meant by "irregular". So now we're trying to help Guest Casimir move forward, given the situation they are in now.

I agree completely. I have been trying to explain the current situation in the posts above, but this is not a good way to run things. As one example of the problems you get into: the assembly has defeated a motion to codify a custom but hasn't replaced the custom. This will likely lead to much uncertainty at future meetings as to who is allowed to vote. (I'd say custom still stands, but your assembly may not feel that way), The way it was handled was irregular. Was the dissenter's proposal formally before the assembly and being debated when the meeting adjourned? If so, it sounds like you are dealing with it as a separate, original propsition and that it is properly "Unfinished Business" for the next meeting.