Weldon Merritt

Assuming both (individually) are members of the assembly, no rule in RONR would prohibit it.

He or she would have the authority to preside over the AGM, including ruling on Points of Order, voting (if he or she is a member) when his or her vote would affect the result, and appointing any positions that may be appointed by the chair incident to the meeting (such as tellers if not already appointed). He or she would have none of the authority that the bylaws grant to the president.

So to be absolutely clear (if it wasn't already), the answer to the original question: is yes, unless your own bylaws prohibit it. Whether it is wise is another question.

Your question is one about the town ordinances and not about RONR. You will need to contact an attorney knowledgeable of the ordinances and any applicable state laws. So far as RONR is concerned, and adopted motion remains in effect until it is fully executed or rescinded. But that may or may not be true of the ordinance in question.

Any issues relating to "Sunshine Act" violations are beyond the scope of RONR and this forum.

I was about to respond when Mr. Katz beat me to it! So I will just say that I concur with his response.

Of course it cam, even if "the seconding party" also has left. Why would you think otherwise? Once the motion is stated by the chair, it belongs to the assembly, who can deal with it as they please.

I certainly started out thinking that. And it still seems to me that under some circumstances it should be. But I will have to say that I am not as confident of my original opinion as I once was.

I am one of those who believe that the motion to ratify can be amended in other ways than just be substituting a motion to censure. But I certainly cannot agree with your statement that those who disagree are "Completely wrong. Indisputably wrong." I think there is legitimate room for disagreement.

The board's action was to adopt the motion. The actual repair was undertaken by one or more individuals in compliance with the motion. While I am one of those who think the the motion to ratify the motion should be divisible, I don't think it is helpful to confuse the action of adopting the motion with the action of effectuating the repair and cleaning.

I agree, if we are talking about the initial adoption of a policy, But and amendment to an existing policy would require either previous notice and a majority, OR a 2/3 vote, OR a majority of the entire membership. (Still different from what typically is required for bylaws amendments,)

Where did you get the idea that bylaws "need a 30 membership review/comment period"? That's certainly not an RONR requirement, so if it exists at all, it is due to a provision in your organization's own rules. And whatever review "policy and procedures" may need also should be addressed in those rules.

Indeed!

You are correct. But it does happen, more often that we might think. And if an immediate Point of Order is nit not raised, it is too late to raise it later. Also true, but apparently irrelevant to the question asked.

The limit is per debatable question. The motion to Reconsider is a separate debatable question, so even if a member has exhausted the right to debate the original question, the member still has a right to debate the motion to Reconsider. And since debate on that motion can go into the merits of the question to be reconsidered, the member, in effect, gets another bite (or two bites) at the apple,

No, unless the resignation clearly was to be effective at a later date and the votes occurred at a meeting prior to that date. However, unless that person's single vote could have altered the outcome (i.e., the vote was decided by a one-vote margin or there was a tie), the result of the adoption or rejection of any motions on which that person voted still stand as valid.

In general, proposed bylaws amendments are themselves amendable, so long as the amendments are within the scope of notice. I don't see anything in the quoted language that would change the general rule. How do you determine whether an amendment is within the scope of notice? For some amendments, it is very simple. Suppose the current bylaws set annual dues at $25, and an amendment is proposed to change the dues to $50. An amendment to change the dues to any amount between $25 and $50 would be within the scope of notice, but any amount less than $25 or more than $50 would not be. Sometimes, determining the scope of notice, or even if there is a scope of notice restriction for a particular amendment, is more difficult. If the chair is in doubt, the question may be submitted to the assembly, and is decided by majority vote. Or if the chair rules one way and someone disagrees, the chair's ruling may be appealed to the assembly, which again decides by majority vote.

Yes, I recognize that there may be alternate ways to accomplish the desired result. But it still seems to me that this elevates form over substance. I also recognize that in some instances, the specific form of an action does matter. I'm just not convinced that this is one of those instances. And it seems that I am not alone in my skepticism.

I'm still not convinced. If the board originally had adopted two separate motions, one to repair the pipe and one to clean the carpet, the assembly certainly could have chosen to ratify one but not the other. But if the board adopted a single motion authorizing both actions, the assembly is limited to ratifying both or refusing to ratify either? I'm sorry, but that seems to elevate form over substance, and simply does not make sense to me.

The question, however, is the scope of amendment. Mr. Honemann, if I am understanding correctly, seems to believe that the only permissible amendment is to substitute a motion of censure. But it seems more convincing to me that if the motion being ratified is one that could have been divided, the motion to ratify also should be divisible in the same way. So in that regard, I am in agreement with J.J. If the assembly believes that repair of the pipe was appropriate but cleaning the carpet was not, why should they not be able to ratify the motion only insofar as it authorized repair of the pipe?

Note that even when the minutes are approved by a committee, the board may still make corrections to them later, if they contain an error. This would be done by use of the motion to amend something previously adopted. That motion require only a majority vote if previous notice is given. Otherwise, it requires either a two-thirds vote or a majority of the entire membership (of the board).

It is not proper for the board to approve the minutes outside a meeting, since a board may act as a board only in a meeting. But it is proper for the board to delegate approval of the minutes to a minutes approval committee, which would approve them and report the approval at the next board meeting.

I suppose that would be enough to authorize it. But I would add something like, "in accordance with special rules of order adopted by the society." And then adopt appropriate SROs. You might take a look at the eNAP Unit's rules for chat room meetings at https://www.enapunit.org/about/enap-special-rules-of-order/irc-rules. As Mr. Martin noted, eNAP now uses Zoom, but we have retained the chat room rules in case we ever want to use that platform again.

If you want to be able to use an ordinary majority vote (i.e., a majority of those present and voting, with no other qualifications), then obviously, someone had to have given proper notice at the previous meeting or in the notice of the meeting. If no previous notice was given, then one of the other two voting thresholds must be met. But you don't have to decide which one to use. You simply count the votes, and if either is met, the motion is adopted.

Since the OP mentioned "amendment," I assumed the reference was to a bylaws amendment. Of course, it could have been some other amendment, but whatever it was, it apparently required a two-thirds vote.