jstackpo

Yes, still a member.

A "resignation" is a request to be excused from a duty - page 289ff.  Check those pages for what you, the board, can or should do with the resignation. Until it is accepted (or a "reasonable" time has passed) nothing has changed.

Raise a point of order, or simply propose a motion rescinding the action (and maybe censuring the Board) at the next general membership meeting.   The members are in charge, not the board.

Stay away from "motives".  Your are not a mind reader. 

Nothing in RONR  requires that the pastor nominate a different candidate when his/her first one is not approved.   You would have to amend your bylaws to put such a requirement in place.

Those are state (&c) laws for corporations, of course.  RONR would have none of it for ordinary associations, unless authorized in bylaws.

Then off to Chapter XX you go.  Good luck.

23 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Well, that's also what convincing would mean. What is "clear" doing, then?

Poking its head up on line 25, page 349.    It is a bit of a pleonasm, I dare say.

"Clear and convincing evidence" (a phrase used in quorum discussions, but presumably applicable here too) in the RONR context would appear to mean "whatever convinces a majority that the statement is true".    What else could it mean?  The assembly is the ultimate authority, judge, and jury (short of legal approaches, of course).

The difference is that a "reconsideration" involves a formal motion "to reconsider" (with limits of who can make the motion to reconsider and when)   while "renew" means that anybody (NO previous Yea or Nay requirements) can make the same motion (that was defeated previously) at a later session/meeting. 

Nothing in RONR would prohibit these examples of "multiple service".

Your rules & bylaws may have rules pertaining to your question -- best to check them carefully.

(What is an INC board?  A group of spelling impaired calligraphers?)

Getting a copy of RONR itself and diving in, would be another good first step. Click here to start your voyage of discovery..

Or... if the member in question is not a member of the board (even though he/she may be an association member), he can be simply asked to leave.  Non-board-members do not have any rights wrt board meetings, &c.   Local rules, or laws, may apply and have a different conclusion. 

Committees:  RONR, page 489ff.  The business about two people calling a meeting when the chairman fails to do so is on p. 499.

Agendas:  (or agendae?) page 371ff, although to be well advised to start back on page 351.

But local rules & laws prevail, as others have noted.

It is a bit off topic (RONR), but does the Brown act apply to committees?  If not you could still invoke the two-members-call rule from RONR to get things under way. 

Presuming  (you didn't say, or I didn't catch it) that all those amendments were adopted (or defeated, for that matter), it is now too late (RONR p 250) to raise a point of order about the procedural errors that were made in the meeting.  But check p. 251  (lots of reading assignments here!) to double check if any of the "continuing breach" criteria were met, which would allow a later point of order.  From what you have said, that seems unlikely.

The amendments, if adopted, are now in place.  If you don't like the content of the (newly amended) bylaws, you are free to propose further amendments to the bylaws, following the  procedure for doing so.   There is no provision for "re-doing" votes on bylaws - amendments go into effect right away, upon adoption.

The first reason - and you caught it - is that your friend's amendment was not germane to the pending (properly previously noticed) amendment under consideration.  Raise a point of order at the meeting (and be sure to bring friends with you to back you up).

And the other reason is that your friend's amendment did not get a proper notice.  If your friends amendment had been germane to the pending (noticed) amendment, it would have been perfectly proper.

See if B&N has a copy of RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will ever need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link: 

http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html

Or in your local bookstore.

It might be just what the parliamentarian ordered. 

Well, you are mostly right, but possibly wrong  --  it depends on the content of the second amendment.

If that second amendment was to some other portion of the bylaws, different from what the properly noticed (first) amendment dealt with, then that second amendment was clearly out of order (for more than one reason).

However, since it is proper to amend an amendment (even without notice of that second change) as long as the content of the second amendment deals directly with the content of the first one, your friend may have been within his rights.

 RONR, page 594ff, covers this.

No he cannot, your instincts were correct.  When the first amendment to the main motion was pending, the person with the other amendment (#2) should have either waited, or been told to wait (politely, one hopes) by the chair until the first was disposed of.

Check back with your "trainer" to see where he/she got the "end of session" non-rule, and try to set him straight.

Telling the group that "disband" is the only realistic choice  --  no soft pedaling!  --  may be just what shakes some folks loose and they decide to volunteer after all.

FWIMBW, my experiences lately with a number of organizations is that you are not alone with this problem.

First check your bylaws.  With luck, they may have a provision, in the "term of office" section, that say, in effect, that the current officers stay in office until new ones are elected.  If not, too bad!  Maybe it is time to dispand the association.

In the order you asked:

1)  Yes, you can make amendments as you consider the adoption of your local P&Ps.

2)  Don't know what you mean by "putting in blocks".

3)  No discussion?  Only if you adopt the motion for the Previous Question  --  the motion to stop debate and vote immediately.  Requires 2/3 to be adopted.   It is probably not a good idea to do so as others eyes may see (fixable) problems in the proposals that you overlooked.

Question:  Do your municipal ordinances (never mind RONR at this point) require notice for all business (new or unfinished, or whatever) to be brought up before your assembly?  That will avoid all surprises, of course, which may be a good thing for a government agency.  If thems your rules, follow them.

RONR, OTOH, does not require advance notice for almost all kinds of business (amending bylaws is a typical exception).  Some parliamentary motions can have their vote adoption threshold (2/3 vs. majority) reduced if previous notice is given, but it is (usually) not required.   "Regular" new business can be adopted by a majority vote, a quorum being present,  of course.  So surprises are in order. 

If an "Order of Business" (that is the technical phrase for the headings of portions of a meeting - see page 25ff - while an "agenda", strictly speaking, is a list of business items to take up for consideration under those headings, mainly "General Orders" - see page 371) is adopted at the start of a meeting, the president should indeed stick to it. Changes require a 2/3 vote to amend something previously adopted.

There is no requirement that an agenda be adopted, or even prepared ahead of time., although the presiding officer should have some idea of what is going to come up - it will help him to look good and do a better job.

No.  

Making any change, even seemingly innocuous ones, need to go through the full bylaw amendment process.  There is really no telling what implicit changes you could be introducing when moving sections around or introducing "new" articles.

In many organizations that I run into "Pay your dues" is a necessary and sufficient condition for membership.  

Some require a proficiency test, however.  It varies all over the lot.