jstackpo

Record that the motion passed (because that is what happened, after all). You can't "withdraw" something that isn't pending. Depending on the nature of the "discrepancies", it may turn out that you have a "continuing breach" -- see page 251 -- but until that is worked out and settled, the adopted motion stands.

And, guest catil, if your bylaws don't mention special meetings at all, then it is completely improper to (attempt to) hold them.

No. At least not as RONR defines "meeting". For a variant definition, that sticks pretty close to RONR, see: https://www.dropbox.com/s/g8w31eocwqx067h/E-Meetings 2012.docx?dl=0

A further point: even if the motion to suspend (and call you an idiot) is defeated, I have still called you an idiot. And this (defeated) motion goes in the minutes, too. All of which is to say that suspending decorum rules, in order to behave badly, doesn't make much sense.

But... the example of suspend the rules is "I move to suspend the rules and [do something]", not "... suspend the rule prohibiting bad language" because there is no rule, in RONR, explicitly prohibiting bad language. You can't suspend a rule that doesn't exist. So the only "proper" way to suspend decorum would be, for example: "I move to suspend the rules and call you a complete [bleeping] idiot", which rather defeats the purpose.

It ain't easy, but have a go at Chapter XX of RONR -- be sure to use the 2011 edition as the chapter was greatly improved over previous editions.

It is certainly NOT a "special meeting". Ask your adamant member to show you where RONR supports that notion. [Hint: he won't be able to.] Just call it your regular meeting, "postponed to new date". But.... who was the "we" that did the postponing? When? Before the meeting began? Were the "we" authorized to do that?

Prohibit what? Please quote, not paraphrase, your related bylaw provision(s).

If they are suspended, is a person behaving well, with decorum, in violation of the rules?

No, not according to RONR. p. 388.

That sentence from your bylaws clearly gives your president the full and exclusive ("alone") authority to name people to (that is the meaning of "appoint") any and all committees. It also (unfortunately) implies that the pres has the authority to establish committees as he/she wishes. If you don't like who the president is appointing, get a new president or amend the bylaws to make the appointment of committee members subject to confirmation by the members of the association (or perhaps just of the Board). Establishing committees and appointing people to serve on the (previously or simultaneously) established committees are two separate actions. RONR doesn't consistently indicate that to be the case.

How are the members of the committee selected? RONR show a number of methods but leaves it up to the association to pick one. The "selection" method can be specified in the bylaws, or in the motion that established (created) the committee.

Amy member can "take charge". call the meeting to order, then immediately (his being "in charge" may not last for long) run an election for a chairman pro tem, and a secretary, who will then preside over the remainder of the meeting, taking care of whatever business is appropriate for the members to consider.

The items are approved.

This reads, to me anyway, that proxies are permitted.

Well, sorta... The whole book is a set of "standards of conduct" in meetings -- there is no explicit listing of "thou shalts" or "thou shalt nots". It is a book of (meeting) etiquette -- an "Emily Post" for business meetings. Individual departures from "good conduct" are dealt with on an individual basis via the procedures (which are themselves "standards of conduct") found in Chapter 20.

No. There is no RONR requirement that any officer resign from his/her office to run for another office.

Is there a record of the adoption of the true bylaws in minutes somewhere? Of course, if "they" won't produce the correct version of the bylaws, it seems unlikely that they would be very forthcoming with old minutes either.

I suppose the starting point is whether the pushee (or shovee) wants to bring charges, whether legal (not our competency here) or parliamentary. It is up to him/her. Whether the board can "remove" the member, the pusher (or shover), would have to be in your bylaws. "Remove" from what, is the next question.

Dive into RONR Chapter XX. (Take a deep breath first!)

RONR, p. 572, is a bit non-specific, saying "Directors should be classified as officers". So that leaves it up to your bylaws do the "classification". (I would be a bit unsure if asked "Well, if they aren't officers, what are they?" ) However, if you want your "Officers" (President, V-P, Treasurer, &c.) to BE Directors, i.e. to serve as members of the Board of Directors, you do have to be explicit about that in the bylaws. Boards do not have to include all the elected officers.

It gives people a chance to think about their choices, and get up a write in campaign if they don't like what they see. BTW, what is the point of a "motion to accept the ballot"? And what do you mean by a "motion for floor nominations"?

Time for a new president?

Probably not, since it is just an information report. The answer may depend, however, on the reason for the interruption. Care to elaborate? Commonly there is a chance for questions after the report.

yes.