George Mervosh

You should probably discuss this with the board's attorney, but is this report informational only, or does the board intend to act on it? Either way, you probably will be able to make a motion to refer the entire matter back to the staff to consider your option C if you feel that option needs more study than the board could give it during a meeting.

There is also another option, Mr. McLean, but it may not fit exactly what your member wants because it would give him a shot at an up or down vote, but it would also eliminate debate. Per RONR (11th ed.), pp. 266-67: "When the object is to adopt a motion without debate or amendment, the form is: MEMBER A (obtaining the floor): I move to suspend the rules and adopt [or "agree to"] the following resolution: "Resolved, That ..." (Second.) If such a motion does not receive the required two-thirds vote, the main motion can be taken up only in the normal way. This option may be okay to try if the members have been engaged in the subject of this motion long before it comes before the assembly, but I don't know anything about what this motion entails. I've only seen this succeed once at a board level because all of the board members had debated the subject in an informal setting at length before formally taking it up and there really wasn't much more to say.

I know for a fact the board did not make a motion to initiate this. This is just something the President thought this idea up with the help of another board member all on there own.

You can call it a joint meeting if you wish, but you were guests of the regular officers monthly meeting since your term had not started (according to your facts). Therefore you had no rights with reference to the proceedings and there are no exceptions in RONR - non-members may never vote. But look on the bright side, you're either an officer now or will be tomorrow and the incoming crew can discuss these things. Please remember that the bylaws must authorize electronic meetings or you can't validly have them,.

Yes, the cited passage in post 2 mentions that they are rights.

If you are serving as parliamentarian for the board meetings and membership meetings, this rule applies to both: "A member of an assembly who acts as its parliamentarian has the same duty as the presiding officer to maintain a position of impartiality, and therefore does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any question except in the case of a ballot vote. He does not cast a deciding vote, even if his vote would affect the result, since that would interfere with the chair's prerogative of doing so. If a member feels that he cannot properly forgo these rights in order to serve as parliamentarian, he should not accept that position. Unlike the presiding officer, the parliamentarian cannot temporarily relinquish his position in order to exercise such rights on a particular motion. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 467

Absolutely not. If he's a member of the board he has a basic right to attend every board meeting. If any meeting is called without advising the President of it, the meeting is not a regular or properly called meeting an any action taken would be null and void and candidly, if the board did try that, the membership may very well decide to institute disciplinary actions on the rest of the members.

Not unless the bylaws expressly authorize the board to discipline its members, and from you facts, that does not seem to be the case.

As Mr. Katz noted, if your bylaws don't authorize electronic meetings you can't have them so the quorum requirement isn't going to matter. It's probably better to take a chance that you'll meet the quorum requirement at a properly called annual meeting. If you don't have a quorum at your in person meeting you still have satisfied the bylaw requirement to hold the meeting, whether that meeting simply adjourns or, as Mr. Katz notes, adjourns to another date and time. So scrap Zoom, in my opinion.

10 years ago, the late Mr. Mountcastle's source was the 10th Edition of RONR. Today try RONR (11th ed.), p. 468 - "The official record of the proceedings of a deliberative assembly is usually called the minutes, or sometimes—particularly in legislative bodies—the journal. In an ordinary society, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members. The minutes should never reflect the secretary's opinion, favorable or otherwise, on anything said or done." Not only do you not record what is said by the members (of the board in your instance), you don't record what is said by anyone, at least if RONR controls the matter. Oh and please see this from Mr. Gerber regarding tacking on to old threads - https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/25416-important-read-this-first-faq-and-information-for-new-members-and-guests/

There is no need at all to address this in the bylaws. See https://robertsrules.com/faq.html#1

It's the Secretary's duty to prepare the draft and it should done so according to the rules in Section 48 in RONR. But for fun, have your chair read p. 472ff for RONR's form of the minutes. They don't get much briefer than that.

While he's clearly wrong that they are "no" votes, as FAQ#6 that Mr. Martin referred you to notes, it is possible that the abstentions have the same effect as a no vote. If a majority of the entire 3 member board is required to adopt a motion, 1 yes vote isn't going to cut it and the motion would fail. So he may just be using imprecise language.

I'm stubbornly waiting for the Deluxe Edition.

I was sure, So adopting an agenda which does not include new business doesn't prevent members from bringing up new business after all of the items have been gone through, but it's going to take something more to permit it, correct? If so, yes, I wasn't clear on that.

If the rules in RONR solely control this matter and previous notice is not required, yes.

See Temporary Occupants of the Chair, beginning on p. 452 of RONR for the full set rules which Mr. Katz has summarized.

Oops, I misread this. Stay tuned for a good response.

Not unless the board has granted permission for them to do so. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 487

I think it is a motion to amend something previously adopted if it's taken up on the 19th, sure. But what would be in order on the 20th if the meeting was held then and the members were in favor of granting additional time to those who had not paid?

I don't think it's too late but even if you think it is, why couldn't they adopt a new motion to grant an extension?

Sadly, Mr. Mountcastle won't be responding to a 9+ year thread.

How about simply stating that no vote was taken on the motion, since that's what happened?

I think Mr. Martin addressed this, yes.

I'm not sure you asked a question, but when it comes to a meeting of the membership, the board has no authority under the rules in RONR to impose any of the things you mentioned. Members are always entitled to make motions as new business unless the bylaws require previous notice.