Tim Wynn

I admit I don't pay much attention to dates. I've been like that since about 2015.

See RONR (11th ed.), p. 54, for Unanimous Consent.

See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 42-48, for "The Considration of a Main Motion: Basic Steps."

The only RONR suggestions would be that the parliamentarian sit close enough to the chair to allow for subtle consultation and that the secretary sit close enough to the chair to allow papers to be passed between them.

In my opinion, in case (2), for the purposes of determining whether or not the motion is renewable, the motion was not before the assembly. If the motion was "that mint chocolate cake be added to the menu," and the chair stated it as "that mint chocolate shakes be added to the menu," which was immediately corrected by a point of order, I wouldn't think for a second that the latter motion would be out of order later in the meeting. By the way, I'm hungry.

When it is stated by the chair.

Yes.

A bylaw amendment is probably not necessary. As Mr. Martin's reference suggests, one of the "negatives" can simply make a motion to do things a different way, and a majority will decide.

"... if it is not thus taken up before adjournment, these minutes must be read at the following meeting..." - p. 547, l. 3-5. It it my interpretation that when RONR says "dispense with," it refers to "Reading and Approval of the minutes." I don't believe RONR ever refers to "dispensing with" the mere reading of minutes. RONR separates Reading from Approval through either 1)Suspending the Rules, or 2) Sending draft minutes with the notice. I don't believe the term "dispense" is intended to cause a separation at all; it is intended to "delay" both reading and approval. In keeping with my interpretation, you'll notice that p. 575, l. 9-19, in outlining this procedure never uses the word, "dispense." This, along with the reading, is precisely what is delayed, when an assembly chooses to "dispense with," as used on pages 456-457. The reading and approval of minutes may be delayed to the next meeting, where they MUST be read (and approved), thought he actual reading can be skipped, by either of the two forms posted above, and found on page 457. Absolutely, and it seems that the group doesn't understand the importance of the minutes as the official record. I can see how groups may feel that the minutes are just a news report of what happened last meeting, but they should realize that they are much more than that. They are the official record of what was done at the meeting, and they only become that when they're approved.

Most documents are clear, before one has had a chance to read them.

This would be my answer as well, and if there were any actual injurious misconduct in this "serious-sounding" behavior, I would probably move to include it in a report to the governing body. [from now on, I'm going to have Trina write all of my opinions and think all of my thoughts for me. ]

If you're unclear on what your bylaws mean, why should anyone else understand them? (In other words, I concur with Mr. Mountcastle.) In the fragment of bylaw that you've paraphrased, it appears that your rules don't merely remove a right; they also state a right. This may add complications for interpreting. For principles of interpretation, RONR(10th ed.), p. 570-573.

Dude wanted a CD changer.

Robert's Rules of Order (10th ed.), p. 92-93.

Gee, Josh, that sounds like RONR's view.

You shouldn't record them. The minutes are the official record of what was DONE not what was SAID. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 451, l. 25 - 28. You could make mention that Public Comments were heard, but it should just be a brief sentence to that effect. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 454 - 456 for sample minutes.