Chris Harrison

As I mentioned earlier RONR doesn't grant anyone the authority to veto anything.  Since (apparently) your Town's governing rules/law provides for a Mayoral Veto you will need to look to those rules and/or law for your answer.

RONR doesn't grant the President (or anyone else for that matter) the power to "veto" anything.  However, you may be using the term "veto" differently than us.  Is the President claiming some rule has been violated by the adoption of this motion (and if so can you please provide more detail?) or does he or she simply not like the motion?

If a member violates decorum then call the member to order.  There is nothing in RONR prohibiting the use of personal stories (and anyone making the claim that it is should be asked to provide evidence of this claim).

That depends on whom the Standing Rules are for.  If they are for the Board then the General Membership wouldn't necessarily need to know about them or have any input.  On the other hand, it the Standing Rules are for the General Membership my question is why the Board is getting involved in something that most likely have little to do with them?

As far as RONR is concerned the Secretary (who is elected not appointed by the Chair) takes the minutes and no one has a right to edit them before they are brought before the assembly for approval (though the Secretary can ask others to take a look at them if he or she wishes).  See RONR pp. 458-460 and pp. 473-475 regarding the duties of the Secretary and approval of the minutes.

Quote

So my first question is can that officer take back his resignation?

Well, you said your Bylaws say, "Any member who decides to turn in their gear and equipment or abandon it at the station as to indicate that they are resigning for whatever reason will have their resignation accepted immediately and their gear will be put back into inventory or reissued to someone else."   That makes it seem that there is no way to withdraw the resignation unless the member doesn't fully go through with turning in their gear (I'd imagine there is more of a process than just saying "Here" and walking away) or collecting their gear from wherever they had left it before someone determines it has been "abandoned."

Quote

My second question is can a member be dismissed for hearsay according to Robert's Rules of Order?

RONR doesn't limit the reasons why an organization may discipline/expel a member.  Any limitations would be located in your Bylaws 

Quote

Does that dismissal require according to Robert's rule of order, a letter of dismissal, also does it require a vote? 

It is usually a good idea to formally notify a member if they have been expelled (makes things a little less confusing if he then shows up at a meeting ).  Your Bylaws seem to answer your question regarding whether it requires a vote.

The short answer is maybe. 

The middle length answer is check your rules.

The long answer is it depends on several factors including what the organization's rules say on the subject.  For example, if the Bylaws say nothing on discipline and the Board member is being tried under the provisions in RONR Chapter XX then he might have had his rights of membership suspended (which would include the right to vote) or maybe not depending on what the resolution preferring charges says.  On the other hand, if the Bylaws define a Board member's term of office in a certain way he may be removed from office without requiring a trial in which case he can vote on the motion.

As far as RONR is concerned nonmembers (guests) have no rights at meetings.  Any permissions (except for voting) can be granted on a case-by-case basis, by custom, by adopted rule, or by applicable law.

Since they are a record of the business transacted by the organization I would think they would need to be kept for all eternity.  Like me wanting to read a copy of the Washington Post from the day I was born a member may want to read the minutes from the day of the organization's birth.

39 minutes ago, Deb Parm said:

it is assumed to be a 'yes' vote?

Well, you know what it means when you assume something. 

I wouldn't make that assumption.  First, there may be cases where everyone is against the motion but it is necessary for someone to make the motion so the assembly can go on record in overwhelmingly voting it down.  Also, while the member may originally be in favor of the motion through debate he or she may be convinced the motion isn't such a good idea after all.

The members can request whatever they want but that doesn't mean their request will be granted.  Since you say the Bylaws don't say anything about removing the Building Manager I suspect (absent some superior rule or law saying otherwise) the Board is the only body who can remove her.  However, there is always the option of electing Board members who are willing to get rid of her. 

A majority is sufficient if the Bylaws say it is.  However, your Bylaws say it is not so it isn't. 

That being said, was previous notice given?  If it wasn't then a Point of Order can be raised without regard to the normal timeliness requirement (RONR p. 251[e]).  If previous notice was given then it would be too later to raise a Point of Order regarding a 2/3 vote not being reached (Official Interpretation 2006-18).

Only members have a right to attend meetings (RONR p. 3,  p. 644 ll. 23-32).

If the Bylaws or an adopted Special Rule of Order names RONR as the parliamentary authority then RONR is the parliamentary authority.  If the assembly chooses not to follow it (for whatever reason) the fault lies with the assembly (and in particular the Chair for not enforcing the rules) not RONR.

You had 7 Board members and you lost 2 which leaves 5.  Your answer is 51% of that.

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

No, this is entirely false. Personal attacks are prohibited, and members may be disciplined for words spoken in debate, but only at the time of the infraction.

Agreed.  However, even if the assembly missed out in dealing with the infraction at the time it occurred couldn't they subject the member to a full fledged trial at a later point if they determined it was egregious enough?

13 minutes ago, Guest Me again said:

I think my biggest clarification is can members say anything they wish during debate, or is it limited. This member claims during debate, anything he says is privileged and acceptable, however he often resorts to personal attacks during debate. 

Not true!  There are definitely limits to what can be said in debate and a member can be disciplined for violating decorum.  See RONR pp. 391-394 regarding decorum and pp. 644-648 for how to deal with violations of decorum.

Can't have them unless the Bylaws specifically provide for them (RONR pp. 97-99).

RONR doesn't require it.  Also, generally speaking the minutes aren't supposed to reflect what was said during a meeting only what was done (RONR p. 468 ll. 16-18).

15 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Yes, but the assembly should not have done so, because the chairman’s ruling was wrong.

Was it?  If there were no Bulletin Board or Online calendar I would 100% agree.  However, assuming members had ready access to them, and they were accurate, and the information was posted there at least 10 days before I think a reasonable argument could be made that the notice requirement was complied with. 

I don't know if after all was said I would actually support that argument but I do think it would be reasonable enough.

2 hours ago, Guest White Rabbit said:

Could it have been possible to affirm the chair's ruling by majority vote of those present, and continue the meeting as scheduled?

Yes.  To argue that an Appeal regarding whether the meeting is invalid can't be made because the meeting is invalid is absolutely absurd.  To take that argument to its (extreme) end is that a single member can unilaterally bring everything to a screeching halt by just raising a Point of Order that the meeting is invalid (for any reason they want to dream up).  I can't speak as to whether the meeting was indeed invalid but the members should have made that decision for itself.

Who is handling the resignation?  The Board or General Membership?  If it is the Board then the nonmember (of the Board) has no right to inspect the letter (though the General Membership can order it produced).  However, if it is the General Membership who is handling it then an argument could be made that the letter is a record of the organization and thus the member has a right to inspect it.

RONR doesn't address "contract rights" or what they are.  I would suggest you ask someone who has been in the organization for a while what they know about it.

That depends on whether the Bylaws require the President (and members) be given previous notice of the intent to remove him or if they are allowed to just spring it on him.

17 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Did I miss something?  How did electronic meetings get mixed up in this?

A possible option for conducting business if part of the problem is getting enough people to the same place at the same time.  I'd imagine a lot more people would be willing to "attend" the meeting at the end of a long day if they can do it from their own computer at home with a cold one at their side.