Joshua Katz

If it is truly the case that *all* governing documents contain this requirement, then the only way to change it will be to amend the articles of incorporation by whatever procedure is prescribed for their amendment under applicable law and what the articles say on the topic. I do not see any way, though, to keep the rule as it stands and make a special exception this time - of course, I'm saying that without studying the applicable documents, so I'm not certain. As to whether actions require board or membership action, that depends on what your rules say about amendments, but I would except it would probably be the membership. Edited to add: You should also consider what happens if no changes are made. That means determining, first, what exactly your rules say about the term of office, in particular, whether it contains "until their successors are elected" language. Second, determining whether these are requirements for running for office, being elected to office, or serving in office. It could be that the current board will be able to continue.

If nothing was said about the city, wouldn't it follow that another option is a point of order that inclusion of the city is commentary or what was said as opposed to what was done?

However, the body could (and I suggest it would be a good idea) adopt a proviso that the change is effective at the final adjournment of the session.

Presumably, an hour earlier than the rest of the Mountain Time Zone.

The minutes should not contain personal observations, judgmental comments or the language you mentioned. They should not include anything said at the meeting, only what was done at the meeting. This is not a short-cut; it's a way to have useful and effective minutes. That said, why are you having this discussion with the chair rather than the secretary?

The member should move to suspend the rules for the purpose of taking up (the motion).

Since the organization is considering amending the bylaws anyway, why not just modify the requirements for being an officer, and, while you're at it, remove the suspension provision?

No, but the assembly is free to not adopt the agenda. (RONR suggests that, typically, an organization meeting monthly does not have any need for an agenda at all.) And new business can still be introduced by amending the agenda to include it, either before or after adoption (but the threshold differs) or by suspending the rules.

Bylaw requirements cannot be suspended (with certain exceptions not likely applicable here). But there's really no need to do anything, anyway. You didn't meet in March and nothing can change that. The organization should just move forward.

I'm hesitant, and the language is somewhat ambiguous, but here's the general rule: it takes a majority vote to amend an agenda prior to its adoption, and a 2/3 vote (or majority of the entire membership) to amend it after it is adopted.

As Mr. Elsman said, we don't know. The fact that you mention a rule requiring prior posting of your agenda suggests that there are additional rules in play here. Since we don't know those rules, we don't know the answer.

Your bylaws should say who presides in the absence of the chair. If not, the vice president presides. If there is no vice president, the assembly elects a chair pro tem. In no circumstance does an absent presiding officer have the ability to unilaterally bind the assembly as to who presides.

While I agree with Mr. Elsman, I think we can take on a few bits: If the agenda presented for adoption truly just restates the order of business in your parliamentary authority, then I would suggest that adopting it does nothing, and in fact is out of order. An agenda is a list of general and special orders. If it contains neither of those things, I don't see how it can be an agenda. It sounds as if your organization is subject to a sunshine law (or rule). If that is the case, it is not clear that, in fact, members may raise new business at any time; the answer to that will depend on the specifics of the law in question, and therefore will require consultation with an attorney. But, just for fun - what does your organization do if the posted agenda is not approved at the meeting?

Somehow, I am not surprised 😉 I don't necessarily disagree, but I think it comes down to the language.

A precise answer would depend on your bylaws language (which only your organization can interpret). However, my personal opinion is that, if your quorum is based on delegates registered in attendance, it does not fall as delegates leave. They still registered in attendance. If you are using different language, though, then the answer may change. It seems yours says registered delegates, which arguably includes only those currently registered. Only your organization can decide, though.