Gary Novosielski

But that is the way that it is done in an in-person meeting. Without that it is not a deliberative assembly.

Presuming that this interest applies to him alone. If it is in common with other members, there is no problem

Of course. Otherwise how could a motion that is permitted to interrupt someone speaking be able to interrupt someone speaking. The fact that members can speak without being recognized is essential to raising a point of order. But they are not "permitted" to speak, except as the rules of order provide.

No, he didn't call a meeting. He said he is going to call a meeting. When he calls it, he must say the time and place.

Yes, 5 is greater than 3. So the motion carries. Vote changing is not permitted once the result is announced.

It is no more incomprehensible than to say that a motion is amendable but not debatable. The meaning is clear and concise. A rule may be amended, but it may not be suspended. There are many rules in most any set of bylaws that fall into this category.

Yes. For a majority vote, all that is necessary is for the Yes votes to be strictly more numerous than the No votes. Anything less, including tie votes, rejects the motion. It does not make any difference how many people abstain. Abstentions should not be called for, and should not be counted, except during roll-call votes. Anyone who does not vote has abstained. But on an ordinary majority vote, abstentions cannot affect the outcome. They are not votes at all.

The general body is in charge of its own minutes. It should appoint a committee authorized to approve its minutes, or it may assign this task to the board. Waiting a year is not okay. See RONR (12th ed.) 48:12, which says: Exceptions to the rule that minutes are approved at the next regular meeting (or at the next meeting within the session) arise when the next meeting will not be held within a quarterly time interval, when the term of a specified portion of the membership will expire before the start of the next meeting, or when, as at the final meeting of a convention, the assembly will be dissolved at the close of the present meeting. In any of these cases, minutes that have not been approved previously should be approved before final adjournment, or the assembly should authorize the executive board or a special committee to approve the minutes. The fact that the minutes are not read for approval at the next meeting does not prevent a member from having a relevant excerpt read for information; nor does it prevent the assembly in such a case from making additional corrections, treating the minutes as having been previously approved (see 48:15)

The minutes should be presented to the general membership for approval of their own minutes. But this should not have been allowed to go 7 months without approval. On what grounds are "some" board members insisting that the minutes be presented to the board? When the general membership will not be meeting on less than a quarterly interval, it should not simply fail to approve the minutes, or let them languish for many nonths. It should make arrangement to have its minutes approved in a timely manner. It can do this by appointing a committee to review and approve the minutes, it could also assign this approval process to the board, but the board can't insist on it.

This seems to be tacked on to a ten-month-old thread. Please ask a complete question as a new topic.

No, that's not sufficient reason to rule the motion out of order.

Yes. The chair must call for additional nominations after hearing the Nominating Committee report. I think the board erred by appointing itself as a nominating committee but that's another question. There is no "vote" on hearing the report. The report must be received, and there is no vote on accepting it. [RONR (12th ed.) 46:6] Unless the bylaws or a special rule of order provides otherwise, the chair must call for further nominations at the session at which the election is held even if nominations were called for at a previous session. A member need not be recognized by the chair to make a nomination unless he or she wishes to speak in debate on it at the same time (see 46:27–29)

I agree that a full trial is not required. I would, however, say that two-thirds of those present and voting would be sufficient, so long as a quorum of two-thirds of the members were present. For cause is whatever the membership deems to be a serious enough offense to vote for removal.

I never met George, but of course I will miss his knowing and wise voice here, as will we all.

There's no need to resign from a term that is coming to its natural end. He can simply decline reëlection.