Weldon Merritt

Indeed there is! Becoming an RP takes a lot more work.

They may use RONR for the conduct of business, But RONR gives non-members no rights. So as far as RONR is concerned, you have no right to address the body in the first place. To reiterate, any rights you have must be grated by the body's own rules.

You will not find the answer in RONR, Whatever rights, if any, that you have will be governed by the governing body's own rules.

If, as I understand, the limitation is on the time allowed for debate, when that time expires, you vote. The only subsidiary motions that can be made are Lay on the Table (which seldom is actually in order) or a new motion to further extend the limits of debate. RONR (12 ed.) Sure. But as noted above, you vote when the time for debate expires, even if not explicitly stated.

I suspect we've all made dumb mistakes at one time or another.

Since when does Previous Question not require a second (under the normal rules)?

My thought is that if the amendments were not properly noticed as amendments to the bylaws, then the bylaws were not amended. And since the bylaws take precedence over the policies and procedures, the president is correct. This illustrates the wisdom of what I often refer to as "Seabold's Maxim" (after RONR author Dan Seabold, from whom I first heard it in a workshop he gave several years ago): "Say it once; say it clearly; and say it in the right place."

True. But it could be suspended for a particular meeting by a 2/3 vote, with no notice required. Unless it can somehow be interpreted as a protection of absentees, who might have an expectation that the issue could not be considered and therefore don't attend the meeting

As Dr. Kapur and Mr. Katz have said, you can do it. But I will now be the first to tell you why it is a bad idea to give the Immediate Past President any sort of official position. Or, more accurately. I will tell you what our esteemed late colleague, Dr. John Stackpole, had to say about it (since I can't improve on his reasons):

Oh, I think you probably are correct. But I still can't help wondering why anyone would think that RONR would address anything that specific.

The bylaws can't simply be ignored. But depending on what "process" you are talking about, it might be possible for the board to suspend the rules and do something not otherwise allowed in the bylaws. To tell you whether that would be possible for the the specific process you are talking about, we would need more information.

I've seen some strange questions on this forum, but this one takes the cake! It escapes me how anyone could think a book on parliamentary procedure would have anything to say about animals!

RONR places no specific limit on how often the chair may do this, but does advise that "unless a presiding officer is extremely sparing in leaving the chair to take part in debate, he may destroy members' confidence in the impartiality of his approach to the task of presiding." RONR (12th ed.) 43:29.

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.