George Mervosh

It might be unethical for them to have a duel, but it would be great fun to watch.

J.J.'s extreme example in his first paragraph makes it fairly clear that the motion, as amended, to commend is not "his own motion", in my opinion, as it has been so materially amended it's almost not event the same question. Other amendments (and I'm lousy at examples on the fly) if adopted may very well still leave the amended motion as his own. So I don't think the fact it was amended becomes a dividing line, it's to what degree was it amended? I agree with Ms. Rempel that a little common sense needs to carry the day.

I think the answer is no, but if it is yes, I'd like to know exactly why.

"Members of the nominating committee are not barred from becoming nominees for office themselves. To make such a requirement would mean, first, that service on the nominating committee carried a penalty by depriving its members of one of their privileges; and second, that appointment or election to the nominating committee could be used to prevent a member from becoming a nominee. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 433

No rule in RONR grants the committee any sort of final authority in this matter. They don't have to nominate him, but after they report at a meeting he can be nominated from the floor. If the President rules that he's ineligible, that decision may be appealed and the membership decides.

Even the book thinks it's that simple sometimes (pp. 229-230 emphasis added by me) "Member Y, sensing that consideration of this question should be kept within the organization, interrupts Member X's speech on the pending resolution by rising "to a question of privilege relating to the assembly." As directed by the president, he states the question of privilege: MEMBER Y: Mr. President, I believe this is a question we should consider in a closed meeting. With apologies to our guests, I move that the open portion of this meeting be declared ended and that our guests be excused. (Second.) CHAIR: The chair rules that the question is one of privilege to be entertained immediately. It is moved and seconded that [stating the question on the motion to go into executive session].

Yes, with an exception for the imposition of most penalties in a disciplinary proceeding.

RONR contains no practical advice for this situation. It simply notes that: "In addition, depending on the character of the organization, it may be advisable to adopt provisions for ensuring that nonmembers cannot participate in meetings (unless properly invited to do so), especially during any meeting or portion of a meeting held in executive session. " RONR (11th ed. ), p. 99

No. "The only business that can be transacted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 93

Yes. RONR lists no requirements. He'd just contact the Secretary to review them. He would also be bound by the same secrecy requirements that would apply for minutes of an executive session. You'd need to check with a lawyer, RONR doesn't require one. If he's reviewing them outside of a meeting seeing I don't think this is applicable.

RONR doesn't say but I think the answer to your question is, no. I think saying the meeting was held by teleconference is fine. Not that NAP always does everything right, but if you peruse the board meeting minutes history you'll see they simply mention the meeting was held using the technology that was used for that particular meeting. I think that's adequate. http://www.parliamentarians.org/documents/board-minutes/

See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 354-355 for the full passage on reading and approval of minutes.

No motion needs main or vote taken on the final approval. Once all corrections have been dealt with the chair simply declares the minutes approved without a vote.

Absolutely not. No rule in RONR would permit that.

Well I'm more concerned with RONR prohibiting it and I just can't see where it does.

I think he can be nominated. RONR discusses cases where an election can be contested: "If an individual does not meet the qualifications for the post established in the bylaws, his or her election is tantamount to adoption of a main motion that conflicts with the bylaws. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 445 There's nothing to overturn when it comes to a nomination as there's no final action take by the assembly at that point. As Mr. Brown notes, there very well may be some dispute about his qualifications under the bylaws at the time he is elected (especially if there is a delay between when he's elected and when he assumes office) and that's something the assembly needs to resolve if there is such a dispute.

Your question simply goes beyond the scope of the forum. The answer provided by the RONR Authors in the FAQ link Mr. Huynh provided is the only one permitted here, as far as I know.

RONR also says: " An organization should never adopt a bylaw permitting a question to be decided by a voting procedure in which the votes of persons who attend a meeting are counted together with ballots mailed in by absentees. The votes of those present could be affected by debate, by amendments, and perhaps by the need for repeated balloting, while those absent would be unable to adjust their votes to reflect these factors. Consequently, the absentee ballots would in most cases be on a somewhat different question than that on which those present were voting, leading to confusion, unfairness, and inaccuracy in determining the result" RONR (11th ed.), p. 423 Your group might want to fix that.

Unless the bylaws authorize absentee voting, they may not vote at all. "It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting, although it should be noted that a member need not be present when the question is put. Exceptions to this rule must be expressly stated in the bylaws. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 423

*Members in good standing are those whose rights as members of the assembly are not under suspension as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws. A member may thus be in good standing even if in arrears in payment of dues (see pp. 406, 571–72). If only some of an individual's rights as a member of the assembly are under suspension (for example, the rights to make motions and speak in debate), other rights of assembly membership may still be exercised (for example, the rights to attend meetings and vote). " RONR (11th ed.), p. 6 footnote

Although your question has been answered, if there's a possibility that members may want to offer numerous proposals for how many trucks to purchase, the passage on Filling Blanks may be of use to your group. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 162ff

Seeing an organization worried about debate taking too long is quite refreshing.

I don't think so. Those who abstained were obviously ok with the decision or one of them would have voted no.

I'm glad to see Mr. Elsman return as well, even when we're otherwise disagreeing.

Thanks, Shmuel. I've enabled those settings. I had not noticed that before.