George Mervosh

Wouldn't that, in essence be a rule of order and subject to a suspension of the rules? (not rhetorical because I've never heard of anything like this in practice)

For what occurs in meetings, see RONR (11th ed.), pp. 645-648. For what occurs outside of a meeting setting, or if the procedures in the previously cited pages don't get the job done, all the board can do is refer the matter to the general membership, as a board cannot punish its members under the rules in RONR. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 486.

Is the conduct you mention occurring in a meeting, or just in emails?

Agreeing with Mr. 1stChurch, in the case of an election, you would vote again (and again....) until one candidate receives a majority of the votes cast.

He can and should assist,the member, if necessary, yes. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 39, ll. 17-21 for the full rule.

No, but if it is an officer, it's a duty imposed as the result of adopting a standing rule. Imposing a duty on an officer via a standing rule is what you asked about back in post # (heck I don't know I didn't get my PhD).

So there was a vote and the motion was adopted, correct? Afterwards, a member who voted on the prevailing side moved to reconsider the vote (during that same meeting), but it wasn't taken up at that time, correct? How long is it between your meetings?

Could you restate this using more words (this site doesn't charge per word, but don't give our intrepid moderator any ideas) so I know what you're asking? Even at the plutocratic rate of $6. per hour, I don't read minds.

No. Perhaps the example on p. 18, ll. 9-10 would have been a better example. The guest register will need to be maintained by someone, and most likely it will be the Secretary. The adopted rule requiring the maintenance of a guest register will have the effect of imposing a duty of him, via a standing rule.

What if the additional duty they want is to have President (let's call her Nancy N. but not name her in the rule) be a signatory on all checks (or cheques for you canads) issued by the organization?

If the bylaws require a vote by ballot for an election, that requirement cannot be waived, even if a candidate is running unopposed. If a ballot vote is not required or if the bylaws make an exception for unopposed candidates, the presiding officer can simply declare the unopposed candidate elected. No need for the Secretary to be doing any casting of a ballot. As far as installing officers, your rules will govern as no installation ceremony is required under the rules in RONR.

We cannot interpret your governing documents but under the rules in RONR, one member cannot prefer charges against another.

If someone would move that the rules be suspended to do so (whether he's present or not) isn't that, in essence, taking away his right to make a motion, since a withdrawn motion is generally treated as if it never existed? Suspending the rules could then become a powerful weapon against a member.

Considering Guest Jon, in one of his other threads, is uncertain if the assembly can even propose a bylaw amendment, this might be a good strategy for the assembly to consider until they figure that problem out and get an amendment prepared.

Nothing happens. Consideration of the motion continues just as if he were there.

I hope the answer is, yes, mostly because "no" would be worse.

Just move to take the vote by roll call. It's not debatable and requires a majority vote to adopt the motion. If adopted everyone is on the record with their vote. It really should not be used unless this is a representative body.

I'm lost as well but see http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#9

I don't think Kim's post provided any actual facts for us to render any opinion on whatever it is he's getting at.and any general response is probably not going to be helpful.

The cases where a chair can adjourn the meeting without a motion are found on pp. 240-241 in RONR. A member can raise a point of order and interrupt any improper attempt to adjourn a meeting if the chair is not following the cited procedure. Can you tell us more about what really happened?

1) RONR does state that term limits are "desirable in almost all organizations.........." . RONR (11th ed), pp. 574-575.

No, but as a college graduate they taught me to count to 2. I guess it was worth the money.

I think information gathering is a very fair way to look at what's happening here. They could just as easily appoint a committee to gather information and report back to the board within 30 days, they're just taking a rather unique approach to information gathering.

This doesn't seem like a requirement, as 1st Church has noted. They seem to be seeking information before deciding. It doesn't seem to violate and rule you've quoted.

Is that your unmeaningless opinion, Gary?