George Mervosh

RONR says this regarding the content of the minutes regarding motions: "The body of the minutes should contain a separate paragraph for each subject matter, and should show: 6) all main motions (10) or motions to bring a main question again before the assembly (pp. 74–79; 34–37) that were made or taken up—except, normally, any that were withdrawn*—stating: a) the wording in which each motion was adopted or otherwise disposed of (with the facts as to whether the motion may have been debated or amended before disposition being mentioned only parenthetically); and b) the disposition of the motion, including—if it was temporarily disposed of (pp. 90–91, 340–41)—any primary and secondary amendments and all adhering secondary motions that were then pending; " RONR (11th ed), p.469 The reasoning behind the decisions are not recorded. RONR says nothing about this at all.

You did mention that the position of Executive Director is a non-voting position. That doesn't change the earlier answer.

Nothing in Robert's Rules would prohibit him from holding both positions.

No, RONR has nothing to say about the rights of the public in regards to this matter. If you have concerns contact the council's attorney.

"If notice is given of several amendments which conflict so that all cannot be given effect, the chair should arrange them in a logical order, much as in the case of filling blanks (12), generally taking the least inclusive amendment first and the most inclusive last so that the last one adopted is given effect. Such arrangement of the amendments can be altered by the assembly by a majority vote without debate. Adoption of such an arrangement by unanimous consent or a formal vote is not subject to a motion to Reconsider, nor may a later, separate amendment be offered as a substitute for a pending one. However, as already stated on page 592, all bylaw amendments of which notice was given should be considered, as a matter of the rights of their proposers, and a bylaw amendment is not dropped simply because it would conflict with one previously adopted." RONR (11th ed.), pp. 593-594

Typically, let's say for an online meeting of a convention of delegates, delegates actually do have the authority to conduct an election. The OI also mentions - "This includes the ability to ratify action to carry out decisions made at an electronic meeting of a body for which such meetings are not authorized." So they can't elect officers and ratify that action later?

Would holding a bylaw mandated election of officers at a meeting as described in the OI qualify as "action taken by officers, committees, delegates, or subordinate bodies in excess of their instructions or authority."?

In addition, Mr. Massier, please remember to have those who do show up keep minutes of what transpires. They will obviously be very brief, and even if they can't be approved right away to achieve their official status, it is a must to have that record, which can be approved at a later date.

It's allowed and advisable. In the 10th Edition, see p. 361, lines 24ff It requires a full bylaw change according to whatever amendment procedure your bylaws contain, but you should consider not adopting a specific edition, especially since the 12th edition will likely be out later this year. See this https://robertsrules.com/authority.html

It is advisable to include such a provision. See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 374-375

While you await Mr. Martin's reply, is there any real difference between your question and Guest Dave's question?

Will their required notice " The constitution requires that an announcement of a meeting of the membership be announced on the 2 Sundays prior to the meeting." also apply to the vote to ratify any actions taken?

Amendments are considered and voted on first followed by the original motion (as amended if the amendment is adopted) or the original motion (if the amendment is not adopted). But this is really not a good answer and entirely incomplete because many other things can happen and many other rules apply. RONR In Brief has an excellent section on amendments which explains the process much better than any of us can do here and offers excellent examples of the rules. See RONRIB, p. 38ff. I would urgently recommend you read it if you don't want to read the 30+ pages RONR itself has on amendments.

"RIGHT OF ABSTENTION. Although it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on a question to express it by his vote, he can abstain, since he cannot be compelled to vote. By the same token, when an office or position is to be filled by a number of members, as in the case of a committee, or positions on a board, a member may partially abstain by voting for less than all of those for whom he is entitled to vote. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 407

I agree we don't know the motion's exact wording, but I still think it's entirely possible to rescind an agreement in the nature of a contract, or a flat out contract that where the service(s) provided under the contract are ongoing.

Noting Mr. Martin's comments about practical and legal complications, RONR has no prohibition on rescinding a contract at all. I don't think it matters at all if the auditor has been notified or not.

Well you didn't say this in your last post and yes it seems to cross the line a bit but I wasn't there. I see no problem with the chair making a ruling and advising an assembly they may appeal it, but not actually telling them they SHOULD overturn it. Also, a presiding officer may speak in a debatable appeal but he has no obligation to. The cited passage mentions simply that a presiding officer may indeed welcome an appeal on a hotly contested issue where there is substantial support for both sides.

"APPROPRIATENESS OF APPEAL. If a member disagrees with a ruling of the chair affecting any substantial question, he should not hesitate to appeal. The situation is no more delicate than disagreeing with another member in debate. In the case of serious questions when proponents and opponents appear nearly equal, a presiding officer may welcome an appeal from his decision. By relieving the chair of responsibility in a strongly contested situation and placing it on the assembly itself, better relationships are often preserved. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 258

A failed motion may be made again by any member at any subsequent session, yes. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 336ff

"The amount of regular power delegated to an executive board under the bylaws varies considerably from one organization to another. If the society as a whole meets less often than within quarterly time intervals (pp. 89–90), or if its main purpose is other than to transact business, the entire administrative authority of the society is best left to the board between the society's meetings. Usually in organizations meeting monthly or oftener, and sometimes in those meeting quarterly, the board is not given so much power, since the society can attend to much of its business at its regular meetings. (For appropriate wordings for the governing provision in the bylaws in each of these two cases, see pp. 578, 586.) In any event, no action of the board can alter or conflict with any decision made by the assembly of the society, and any such action of the board is null and void (see p. 577, ll. 23–33). Except in matters placed by the bylaws exclusively under the control of the board, the society's assembly can give the board instructions which it must carry out, and can rescind or amend any action of the board if it is not too late (see 35)." RONR (11th ed), pp. 482-83 I don't see any difference in the rules between the authority delegated by the bylaws, as mentioned above, and authority specifically delegated by a society's assembly in a particular circumstance.

It's probably worth posting a link to https://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#18

By who? And in what setting?

All rules regarding membership eligibility, number of members, classifications of members, etc...are only properly found in the bylaws, not in RONR. See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 571-72

No.

There is no one more candid (or correct) than a Fisherman holed up because of a stay at home order.