George Mervosh

If you are referring to main motions and "still on the table" means one is currently being considered, then no, two main motions may not be considered at the same time. RONR (12th ed.), 5:4 and 25:9.

Perhaps, but we both missed that she requested a citation from In Brief.

In case Mr. Lages is out on his boat fishing, RONR (12th ed.), 4:11 and 49:21

There is no revote. If the main motion in question was defeated it can be made again in any form at the next session of the assembly. See RONR (12th ed.) §38. If the main motion in question was adopted it may be possible to rescind it or amend it. See RONR (12th ed.) §35.

And since you asked, with a few exceptions (35:6) an adopted main motion may be rescinded or amended.

I think you meant Section 38, but Mr. Elsman didn't say it was proper. A timely point of order needed to made and if it was ruled not well taken, appealed. Just ignoring it is the real problem. Since it was ignored and they passed the motion, it remains adopted. Next time don't let the presiding officer get away with ignoring points of order.

No. One vote is all it takes.

I think you're referring to a proviso. See RONR (12th ed.), t24-25 & t41.

As a side note, it might be an excellent idea for the group to enter into executive session when this matter comes up. RONR (12th ed.), 9:24-27.

I don't know but if the governing documents or statute prohibit them from voting, they are not entitled to "full participation in its proceedings" and would not fit the definition of a member as described in 1:4 and therefore would not count toward a quorum on this particular matter, in my opinion.

I think if the governing documents or applicable statute take away a member's right to vote on a particular question, they are not, in fact, a voting member as defined in 1:4 for this particular matter. So I respectfully disagree.

In my opinion, no. Which is why your earlier question is spot on and why Guest Linda B should check with the town's attorney to answer it. My response was only in the general sense that the members were voluntarily abstaining. I should have been more clear.

"As indicated in 3:3, a quorum in an assembly is the number of members (see definition, 1:4) who must be present in order that business can be validly transacted. The quorum refers to the number of members present, not to the number actually voting on a particular question. " RONR (12th ed.), 40:1 If the members in question are present, even though they may not be voting on this particular motion, they count toward a quorum as far as RONR is concerned. You should check with the town's attorney to see if there are applicable rules in statute governing this matter as they will take precedence of the rules in RONR.

I was just asking.

At least to me, this doesn't seem to relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection. Wouldn't a majority vote be sufficient?

If your Senate his having trouble filling available positions, perhaps it is a good idea to work with the bylaws committee you mentioned earlier and review the requirements to hold these positions. The Senate may feel a change is needed and this may help in avoiding issues such as this one in the future. Good luck with whatever decision you make.

It is great to have Mr. Wynn back here and posting again. Now if Mr. Wynn and Mr. Huynh both post together on the same thread it would really be a win-win for everyone.

Unless the bylaws expressly authorize electronic meetings they cannot be held. RONR (12th ed.), 9:30. Voting by email, or other absentee voting methods is also prohibited unless the bylaws expressly authorize it. RONR (12th ed.), 45:56. Therefore, an in person meeting and in person voting is still required until the bylaws are properly amended.

I think you are referring to filling vacancies in office rather than your garden variety elections. See 47:58 A requirement of previous notice protects absentees, if there are any. See 25:10

Assuming they have the authority to fill the vacancy, nothing in RONR would prohibit this. You should contact the attorney for the town's board if you want a definitive opinion on this matter as there will likely be applicable rules in statute that apply here.

At the 2FP our members have had meetings on a boat docked in the bay, and it's worked well.

According to the handy dandy search function here, yes, but I'm still in doubt that he's ever used it personally.

The bylaws must be amended or you can't have them. "Except as authorized in the bylaws, the business of an organization or board can be validly transacted only at a regular or properly called meeting—that is, as defined In 8:2(1), a single official gathering in one room or area—of the assembly of its members at which a quorum is present." RONR (12th ed.) 9:30

This is a standing committee though.

I'm sure many can appreciate your frustrations and I'm sure you know he can't dictate anything and that nothing in RONR gives him the right to clear communications between members. See 50:24-28 for the rules regarding committee procedure. Perhaps you should consider reporting his actions to the appointing power and let them have a chat with him if they feel it's warranted.