Atul Kapur

The motion was in order, but it was not a privileged motion in those circumstances; it was a main motion (21:8) so it was, among other things, debatable.

Isn't this the same question asked here?

I recall that this exact question, with the same group, was dealt with recently. Either you or someone with more time can search for it.

They have it backwards. The chair should rule out of order a motion that conflicts with the bylaws, including a motion to adopt a budget with dues that are higher than authorized in the bylaws. The reference is 10:26(1).

Bottom line is that RONR does not remove their right to vote even if they are in a conflict as RONR defines it - RONR only says they should not vote; if they do vote, their vote must be counted. You may want to look at any internal rules your organization has adopted regarding conflict of interest, including your own definition (which is likely broader than RONR's) and the restrictions on someone in conflict.

I just want to ensure clarity, because I'm not certain what you mean by "call the motion," which is not standard language. As has been stated, RONR presumes that the chair of the committee will be the person to move (or make) the motion arising from the committee's report. However, the Chair of the meeting (in this case, the board chair) presides over the debate and vote on the motion, and announces the result. Some organizations mistakenly have the committee chair preside, and I wanted to make sure that's not what you meant. Your chair may be thinking of reports from officers. RONR says that motions arising from reports of officers should not be made by the officer but by another member. I do not know why RONR treats officers differently from committees in this way.

This line of reasoning and this conclusion is what I meant when I said this was an issue of bylaw interpretation. The first principle of bylaws interpretation in RONR is 56:68 (1) Each society decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws. So it will be up to your organization to decide on how to interpret this question. Mr. Elsman says it in a different way.

But doesn't that rule protect a minority of >10%, so wouldn't 25:2(7) apply?

Well there's your problem. So close this gap and formalize the committee by amending the bylaws or, if your bylaws allow, adopting a motion to create the committee with the details that you want to specify (e.g. number of members, how members and chair are appointed/elected, terms, etc). When you formalize the committee, formally also appoint the members and chair - nothing says you have to appoint the current people. Yes, this may be more tedious and time-consuming, but it sure seems a lot fairer than railroading a member through a disciplinary process for no good reason.

If the bylaw said that suspending any rule in the bylaw required a 9/10 vote, what vote do you say would be required to suspend that rule?

This sounds like a legal question, which you should ask a lawyer knowledgeable about the laws that apply to the corporation.

If you only look at Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, then proxies are not allowed at all, so there's no further advice it provides (as Mr. Elsman said). But there is more. It sounds like you have an issue of bylaws interpretation. As well, there is almost ccertainly a law about condo associations and boards in your jurisdiction that applies, and it may say something about this.

No. It would require a Suspension of the Rules. For what it's worth, I do not recommend this approach.

Then, unless the bylaws of a superior level create a structure and membership for your district (or the districts generally), you have no formal structure or members who can be deemed to have vacated the seats that you don't formally have. So, yes, it sounds like you "need to first adopt bylaws at a District committee level." Do the bylaws of your County committee give your district committee any structure / define the membership, or do they just "enable the creation of District Committees." The quote you have provided regarding absent members appears to only apply to the State Committee itself, not any subordinate body.

The request was for "anything in Robert's Rules that could be used." The quotation was offered in response, without warranty, explicit or implied. 😄 That was one of the reasons I mentioned that a lawyer would likely be involved.

Are you the same person as the OP, Guest Stephen? If not, the moderators ask that you create a new thread for you separate question. When you do, it would help if you shared the exact language in your bylaws about discipline and expulsion of members and about the powers and authority of the board generally.

RONR (12th ed.) has the following [emphasis added]. However, it sounds likely that lawyers will be involved for this, as well. "50:21 Committee Meetings. When a committee has been appointed, its chairman (or first-named member temporarily acting—see 13:18) should call it together.6 If some members of the committee believe that the chairman has failed to call this initial meeting or any subsequent meeting when necessary, a meeting of the committee may be called by any two of its members, unless (such as for very large committees) the assembly’s rules or instructions prescribe, or empower the committee itself to require, a larger number. It is the responsibility of the person or persons calling a committee meeting to ensure that reasonable notice of its time and place is sent to every committee member.

I have no quarrel with this statement, which is different from what was being discussed earlier in this thread.

I will be very surprised if there isn't something in the bylaws that will need to be amended as a result of the departments merging. It may be as simple as the names of the departments or the criteria by which bodies are entitled to Senators. For example, if the bylaws say every department can elect/appojnt one Senator, then that would affect the merged departments. I suggest, @jggorman, that you read the bylaws carefully to ensure that the implications of the merger are clear and, if necessary, appropriate amendments are made.

Thank you for the extra information. I agree with @Joshua Katz's answer above

What, exactly, does the applicable law say? There are many variations; some say proxies are allowed unless the bylaws prohibit them, some say as you write.

This all reinforces the response you have received that you should make a point of order that the amendment did not include this added sentence and that it was never properly added to the bylaws so must be removed from the published bylaws. All of this informal discussion still leaves these questions and the way to resolve them officially is to make the point of order and, if necessary, an appeal. You may want to suggest that a professional parliamentarian be hired to provide a parliamentary opinion on whether the sentence was properly added to the bylaws. That may provide some clarity (although it sounds like the leadership may not agree to this).

Thank you for the correction of my paraphrasing; I have edited my post to point to your corrections. The point stands that the individual motions should not initially be ruled dilatory.

1) That's not the question asked in the OP, which was for one particular motion rather than every subsequent motion individually. 2) I believe it was you, @J. J., who previously said in an unrelated thread that whether a motion is dilatory depends on the result; if the assembly adopts the motion each time, then they apparently don't find it dilatory. [NB: See two posts below where J.J. corrects me on what he actually said previously.]

I don't see how a motion to suspend the rules on more than one motion, such as motions #36-#40 or for the remainder of the session (Question 1 in the OP), is the same question as a motion to suspend the rules on one particular motion, such as motion #37.