Gary Novosielski

If the board specifies a period during which remarks from general members are heard, then in my view, once that period has ended the right of those persons to be heard has ended. I suppose it could be argued that the mere raising of one's hand is not disruptive, but it might be considered annoying, and in any case the person should not expect to be acknowledged. I don't believe the question was intended to encompass emergent events threatening life or property.

I agree with Messrs. Brown and Martin. There is nothing in the original post that suggests to me that the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted would be appropriate. Assuming that the motion that was adopted was a renewal of the contract upon its expiration, under the same terms, It would be an ordinary main motion, and would required only a majority vote to pass. RONR requires no elevated threshold for passage just because one or more members believes it to be more important than some other motion. There are no categories such as "material action" or "matter of import" in t

This sentence is confusing. If the rules in RONR apply, and Annual Meeting is a membership meeting, not a board meeting. And if you filled the position properly, what purpose would this "official" vote serve? It looks like you're following other rules, which we would need to know about.

To clarify, 23:7 refers to members who were excluded from voting or attending the meeting. I would suggest that a member who fails to receive proper notice, but who nevertheless attends the meeting has not been excluded.

No, because §9:5 explicitly applies in cases where no different standard is specified. If a particular method of delivery were specified in the bylaws, then that would supersede 9:5.

Presuming that the VP was initially elected to her first term, then when that term ends, she is eligible to be elected to a second term, but there is nothing in what you quoted that suggests she would be automatically eligible for a second term without standing for election, and possibly losing to someone else.

No. If the rules in RONR apply, the rights of membership are non-transferrable.

If you erase the left half of the 8 it will look like a 3.

The one that can't meet.

It is likely that the vote to continue with fewer board members was not in order, since it would conflict with the bylaws. Also, there is no way to "determine that there will be no election". That would also conflict with the bylaws. You still need to hold your Annual Meeting and hold the election as soon as possible.

No rule in RONR prohibits it, as long as the meeting was not subject to any secrecy conditions. But if the minutes had not yet been approved, they should clearly be marked as - D R A F T - minutes, with a notation that changes may occur before final approval.

Don't you have a Vice President, who would preside if the president is unavailable? And who are "we", and are you sure that "we" have the power to reschedule meetings?

Yes, but it can be presumed that the OP, who is personally familiar with these members, knows their actual gender.

I don't know what a CAM is, but RONR makes no distinction of "material changes" that affect voting thresholds. And there is no 66% requirement anywhere. There are 2/3 votes, which is slightly more, but no 2/3 vote requirements are tied to "material changes" so I can't imagine what the CAM was talking about. Normally, ordinary main motions require a majority vote. But how could board members possibly "decide" to do something that most members are opposed to? The board is subordinate to the membership, and if they do not act in accordance with the wishes of the membership, they could e

No. RONR makes no mention of Covid, not surprisingly. If the rules in RONR apply, 2 years equals 2 years.