George Mervosh

The latter.

I'm not clear what you're asking. Debate being a right of membership isn't relevant to whether or not a particular motion is debatable. It either is or isn't debatable, by rule. Whether it's controversial or not certainly isn't, and neither is the fact it can be handled by unanimous consent. Mr. Honemann has clearly answered Ed's question as far as I can tell.

Hey, I gave Richard Brown plenty of praise for doing so! I was just trying to help them get it right next time.

Amen. It can be used as a guide and a resource without some silly rule saying so, if there is no adopted parliamentary authority. (Not trying to be bluntly incivil towards D. Llama)

But isn't it cold comfort that the rule was not validly adopted (though it was crucial for Mr. Brown to point it out)? From what i see in post #1, they didn't need to adopt a rule at all, they could have simply rejected the nomination of any spouse the President put forth, right?

Applicable main motions can be rescinded or amended, yes. Section 37 of RONR deals with the motion to reconsider, which would not be applicable once the session that adopted the motion ended. See Section 35, beginning on p. 305 in the 11th Edition of RONR for the motion to rescind and amend.something previously adopted.

Yes it is and I deleted my post, but you copied it before you noticed. If the society elects the board and the board elects its officers, I think it's reasonable to suggest he is under the authority of the society.

You're question assumes he becomes an officer, correct? If so then p.447, ll. 16-19 leaves that question unanswered too, right? Or am I way off here?

Was it worth the 50 cents you ponied up for the privilege of reading it?

I'm always appreciative and satisfied. I focused a bit too much on your first sentence earlier but the whole reply is good enough for me. Happy New Year, SG.

I agree that this is a bylaw interpretation question, if that's your ultimate point. I'd be content if we proceeded in the future to just clearly point that out, and let the organization figure it out for themselves. As noted this might not always be true, but i'd suspect that's what organizations mean more often than not.

No one has ever satisfactorily explained to me why, if you're not eligible to be nominated because of some bylaw qualification, that the same qualification is in no way a prohibition against being elected via a ballot vote. "Oh, Mr. A, you can't be nominated for President because you haven't been a member for 5 years, but, no worries, we'll just mount a write-in campaign and that 5 year requirement is out the door." And I'm not taking a pot shot at Mr. Lages, by the way. I always enjoy reading his replies.

As already noted, there is nothing in RONR to support that position so either there's another rule applicable to your group that we don't know about, or, they're just winging it or making it up. Not sure which. The proper action to take if there is no other applicable rule, and they try this, is to raise a point of order at the meeting and if necessary, appeal the (improperly appointed) chair's decision.

The vice president presides if he's there. If he's not, the assembly elects someone to preside. The president cannot appoint someone in advance of the meeting. RONR (11th ed.), pp. 452-453

The Secretary was correct not to include it. What should be in minutes is described on pages 469-471 of RONR.

Would it be a bluntly incivil act to point out a problem here?

Hmmm. Maybe so. I think from now on I'll stick with the simple: "I move that we enter into executive session at this time". Will that work?

Yes, procedural rules in statute always prevail. I was referring to the example on p. 230, where the sample script doesn't go quite so far as to include voting on the matter.

I think FAQ#16 may help you. http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#16

In that case, would it not be best to avoid stating a reason for entering into executive session? Yes, sure it would.

Yes, that's correct.

So leave the debate and reasoning in the minutes, even if it's not part of the motion that was put and adopted at that meeting? As Gary would say, Oh Kim, our last quarrel of 2016.

I'm not sure how reasoning/false information entered into the motion unless it was in a preamble of sorts, but you can't change history. The minutes must contain the exact language of the motion as it was put for a vote. Just worry about rescinding or amending it, if that's the end goal.

Assuming it is still applicable it can be rescinded or amended. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 305ff

Yeah, the original question was about making them an officer, but Josh and Gary seemed to cover the rest.