Gary Novosielski

If the chair will not call a meeting "when necessary", any two members of the committee may do so. It's going to be difficult to get support for removing the chair if members who would have been supportive have already resigned. I'm not a fan of resigning as an effective problem-solving strategy. And as @J. J. noted, all you can do is draft a report of the problem to the parent body and ask for action on their part. If they try to tell you to solve it yourself, remind them that your power is limited, per RONR

No, having a committee meet during a board meeting which is in session is a little too squirrely for RONR to deal with. As @Josh Martin pointed out, you could have a meeting before the board meeting convenes. If the need for input from a committee is discovered during a board meeting, another (only slightly less squirrely) method might be to recess the board meeting at the call of the chair, have the committee chair call the committee to order (possibly in another room), take the vote, move to rise and report, call the board meeting back to order, and have a committee member report on what the result of the committee meeting was. (There is no assumption that other board members were paying any attention during the recess). I'm sort of hoping that others will declare this method too nonsensical to be considered, and I certainly would not recommend it as a common way to do business but if there's a now-or-never reason why it has to be done now, it technically would not violate any rule I'm familiar with.

It's clear that someone has plans to use this language change to get away with something. The best language to use is the language in RONR recommending how it should be adopted: ...replacing the word Society with something more appropriate if need be. And the best reason for using that language is that it is likely that after over a century of experience, this language is less likely to cause trouble than something some rando might make up on his own. To those who believe that Robert's Rules may prove to be too restrictive, note that the <society> is free to adopt any bylaws provisions or special rules of order to remedy that restriction, but this way they are required to do it with their eyes open, using specific language, rather than depending on how some member might choose to interpret RONR on any given day.

Yes it would be considered valid. What is not correct is the concept that a tie needs to be broken. A tie is not a deadlock condition, it is a number less than a majority, and therefore is a rejection of the motion.

Mine is a few feet farther than ams length, so I'm not getting out of the recliner.

No, an item to reconsider a vote cannot simply be made or added by the chair. A member who voted on the prevailing side (in this case someone who voted Yes) may move to Reconsider (§37) a vote on a motion that passed, at that same meeting. If there are no such voters willing to make that motion, or if it is voted down, a motion can be made by anyone to Rescind, or Amend Something Previously Adopted (§35), which can be done at a future meeting, as long as the motion has not already been carried out.

You don't seem to have identified where you got that passage from. It's not from RONR. And it's bad advice.

No, I read the question and answered it. The question was do I need to ask three times.

Even if that's true, it appears that the Members can amend that change out of existence, and can't be countermanded.

No, the "three times" thing is nonsense, but I've heard it before. Where it comes from I have no idea. I suppose it's possible that it's in your bylaws, but it's certainly not anywhere in RONR. Yes, you can ask once, and after a reasonable pause for replies, move on. "Hearing none, nominations for Secretary are closed." But if anyone then says "Hey that was too fast I wanted to nom..." just acknowledge them and allow them to make a nomination. Voting to (re)open nominations takes a majority vote, and voting to close them takes a 2/3 vote, if it comes to that. You say you are running the nomination process of that meeting, which I take to mean that you are not the normal presiding officer. Is there a reason why the normal presiding officer is not performing that duty?

Non-members of the board, if invited, are only permitted to observe, unless specifically allowed by a majority vote to address the board. They may not, however, participate during debate (discussion?) except under a Suspension of the Rules, by a 2/3 vote. And of course they may not vote under any circumstances.

But 10:54 explicitly allows ratification of: If the call of the meeting did not specify any business to be conducted but was otherwise properly called, would this not permit business improperly conducted to be later ratified?

Rather than print pages, I just reach for my physical copy of RONR.

Yes, I use it on my PC as well. Search tip: If you're searching for a particular paragraph like 41:6, leave out the colon and search for 40 6 instead.

I agree with @Daniel H. Honemann. While RONR does not prohibit combining such business into one meeting, doing so would have to be acceptable to both groups. The Management Committee can't force its way in.

Weaponizing is one thing. Making up rules that don't exist is another. The president did nothing that would invalidate the vote. If they think it it did, ask them for the citation.

RONR is not available as a pdf, but it is available in Kindle form, as is RONRIB ((Robert's) Rules of Order Newly Revised--In Brief) 3rd ed.

Reading and approval of minutes happens at the beginning of each regular meeting. If there are corrections offered that anyone objects to, then a vote is taken, and the correction is either agreed to, or not.

Another question, perhaps a line or two above the bottom, is the issue of electronic voting, which is only allowed if your bylaws permit it, and yet another question is how a chair can possibly "rule" anything outside of a meeting. RONR has a notice requirement which says that notice must be provided a "reasonable" time in advance. The definition of reasonable is left up to you. So you cannot argue that since the bylaws are silent, no notice is required. RONR says it is required. What you can debate is whether one hour is a "reasonable" time. I think there may be a difference between moving the time of the meeting to start earlier, as opposed to later. Suppose a meeting was changed to an hour earlier. Members could argue that they had plans that could not be canceled on an hour's notice. But if they say they could not make a meeting that was to start an hour late, are they saying that if they did attend, they would need to leave after an hour?

No, the board is in charge of its own minutes, but again, by a majority vote, not by one person demanding it.

If I have followed the details of what occurred, which can be iffy, the Chief's resignation was never accepted, and so the Chief is still the Chief. Apparently someone tried to move not to accept the resignation, which was an incorrect motion, since not doing something is essentially the same as doing nothing, i.e., the resignation would not be accepted whether the motion passed or failed. The proper motion would be to accept the resignation, and if you were opposed to doing so, to vote No on that motion. And New Business would be the proper time to do so. But as no motion was ever considered, the resignation was never accepted, and the resignation could be withdrawn, if it should please the Chief to do so.

Actually you used the term Executive without the word Directors after it.

Here's an alternate on-line source for PL https://archive.org/details/parliamentarylaw00robe/page/452/mode/1up

It's president for more than just life, unless the Founding President has the foresight to resign before shuffling off this mortal coil.

I would not agree that a motion was moved by a member, since the presentation was not completed, and the member was apparently not recognized. So all we have is a member shouting out some random words during a presentation. The chair should caution the member not to interrupt the speaker, and ignore the seconding member. And as others have noted, a negative motion is not appropriate. What should happen is that when the reporting member completes the presentation, he should move the adoption of the proposal, and that is the motion before the assembly. The rude person who was against the proposal should then seek recognition and debate against the adoption of the motion, and when the vote is taken, would presumably vote against it.