jstackpo

Here's contacts:

NAP:  http://www.parliamentarians.org/

AIP:   https://aipparl.org/

This getting to be a review of your entire bylaws for which you really need to contact the AIP or NAP for a referral to a professional parliamentarian in your area.  [end of commercial]

1)  Do your bylaws make an explicit statement, somewhere, about exactly how a new person becomes a member?

2)  Also what would cause someone to lose his/her membership, other than resigning, say?

3)  And how such a lapsed (past)member could become a member again, if different from #1.

4)  When are renewal dues due, for "continuing" members?

and finally...

5)  Is there a distinction between applying for membership, and actually being admitted to membership?

Sort those questions out and you may be able to answer your own questions (or bolster your own arguments).   Or maybe not... 

Presuming there are no contracts involved, the parliamentarian serves at the pleasure of the chair. p. 465

If the "new Chair" is concerned, just tell him that he need not say anything.   Note that the "Approval  process" - page 354-355 - does not require an actual motion to "approve" being voted on by the  membership. The chair just asks for corrections (these can be voted on if there is disagreement) and then declares the minutes  "approved".

What might a non-attendee (at the prior meeting) offer as a correction?  Maybe an error in a name or the like.   Or perhaps something was attributed, in error, to the then absent member.  Or perhaps there was some information in the minutes (content of debate, for example) that the member knew, on general principles, shouldn't be in the minutes in the first place. He could move a correction to strike that material from the minutes.

Seems shady to me, but I don't think there is anything in RONR about a resigning member getting to take anything with him/her when he leaves.

The current chairman.  (With, as usual, the caveat: unless your bylaws say otherwise.)

See Chapter 20 in RONR.

It sounds quite improper to deny the new members the vote, but...

I would sure like to see that "motion made and passed years ago" and the minutes containing and documenting that motion.   Ask the treasurer for it, since he brought it up.

Then you turn to Chapter 20 on Discipline.

Or declare the office vacant as soon as you get confirmation from the other Squad that the person is indeed in the office.

Or.... [when rules are ignored, the possibilities are endless, lawsuit anybody?]

Or... Since first aid / fire departments are, presumably, under some municipal or state law,s have a lawyer check.  It might turn out that your rule is illegal and cannot be enforced.  Who knows?

Or ...

Josh is a very patient fellow.

HMR himself said so in "Parliamentary Law"  (citation unavailable - it was in one of the question answers)  but he changed his mind, I guess.  Or his intellectual heirs did.

He may be "respected, well-known, and very influential" but until he can produce documentation for his "3 readers" rule he is also ignoreable.   As you noted, he won't find the documentation in RONR (it ain't there), and if your search was thorough it won't be in your association rules, either.  Did you look in your "Standing Rules" (if you have any)? Don't you go to the trouble.  Let your well-known friend do the looking.  (I'll bet he comes up empty.)

If the "four principles" (in your example) amount to a change in the original instructions to the committee, then the motion to "endorse" seems a lot like a motion to discharge the committee from considering whatever they were told in the original motion and then carrying on following the new (?) principles.

You can read all about "discharge a committee" starting on page 310 of RONR. (It is a short section.)

Nor should any minutes contain discussion content.

You are correct:  no written proposal, no opportunity for amendment. 

The only thing you might change (an amendment for December - be sure to put it in writing!) is to state to who the written text should be presented.  Presumably it would be presented to the membership at the April/October meeting, but you should say so to avoid future confusion.

No meeting, no minutes.  (Next time have your non-meeting gathering in the local bar - might be fun.)

Also it would help no end making things clear if you wrote "[Adopted by] a vote of the majority of the entire membership"  --  no ambiguity there. See RONR, page 402ff.

Yes, indeed, your phrase "majority vote by the Quorum Present" is somewhat ambiguous, and most folks here agree that your best bet is to amend the bylaws (if you have time) to strike out this part of the phrase: "by the Quorum Present".  After all, who else would vote but the (quorum's worth of) folks in the room - it seems redundant. 

And yes if 2 vote yes, and the rest abstain, motion carried.   Ask your opposition friend if he really wants folks who have no clue as to how to vote (the 20 abstainers) to cause the motion to be defeated, or force them to vote when they appear to not give a hoot.

Disregard?   No.  I have no idea why that rule is there in the first place -- some kind of potential for conflict of interest, perhaps.

But, until you amend the bylaws (if you, collectively, wish to) you are bound to follow the rule.

Postponing the specific election for the one changing position until after the bylaws were amended was my first thought too.  Make the motion when the chair announces that the assembly will now proceed to the election of all the officers. Seems OK to me.  Majority vote will do it.  You could also postpone the entire election if you want to, provided, perhaps, that that didn't mess up some other scheduled activities.

If you are sure (mostly) that the revision will be adopted, be sure to ask the Nominating Committee to produce a candidate for the at-large position and, just in case, for the "old" position as well.

Basic rights cannot be suspended - p. 264, lines 6-13 (which explicitly includes making nominations).

So the only way to "get around" the basic right to nominate, is to take away the right via a bylaw (or, as p. 264 notes, in disciplinary procedures).

38 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

 I am not aware of any statements in RONR which suggest that the rule in question can only be altered by a provision in the bylaws.

Nor am I aware of any explicit statement.  However, page 435 is extremely firm in the line 11-12 requirement that "the chair must [emphasis added] call for further nominations...".  The use of "must" emphasizes that any member has the basic (see p. 287, line 25) right to make a floor nomination; abrogating such a basic right by a rule that applies generally to all members (rather than in a specific situation of an ongoing nomination) would require a rule placed in the bylaws.

Yeah, the book is a little cloudy on whether a bylaw amendment is necessary, or a Special Rule is sufficient to bar floor nominations.

You are correct - eliminating floor nominations, normally taking place right after the Nominating Committee presents its choices, is a restriction on members rights that must be placed in bylaws.  A P&P document won't do it. Pages 435 & 573.

And if you would like a more extensive set of e-meeting rules, using e-mail (cheap) rather than real time video (expensive?), take a look at this downloadable document:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g8w31eocwqx067h/E-Meetings 2012.docx?dl=0