George Mervosh

If the bylaws specify Robert's Rules of Order without specifying a particular edition of it as the parliamentary authority, then yes, that's what everyone is using. See https://www.robertsrules.com/authority.html

I don't know what you're quoting but it is not the 11th Edition of RONR. Nominations from the floor are required even if the committee nominates a member for every position and there was nothing wrong with this person accepting a nomination from the floor. She could have been nominated by the committee as well. Here is the rule in RONR: "After the nominating committee has presented its report and before voting for the different offices takes place, the chair must call for further nominations from the floor." RONR (11th ed.), p. 435

Any member may offer an amendment to the proposed bylaw amendment provided it is within the scope of the notice requirements Mr. Lages cited. if it is a proper amendment, the assembly will consider it and vote on whether or not to adopt that proposed amendment. Here is an example from the cited pages, but I urgently recommend you and others read the cited pages: "Thus, if the bylaws place the annual dues of members at $10 and an amendment is pending to strike out 10 and insert 25, an amendment to change the 25 to any number between 10 and 25 would be in order, but an amendment to change the number to less than 10 or greater than 25 would be out of order, even with unanimous consent. Had notice been given that it was proposed to increase the dues to more than $25 or to reduce them below $10, members who opposed such a change might have attended the meeting to vote against the amendment. "

No. A quorum is the number of members who must be present and has nothing to do with how many vote on any particular motion. As long as 7 members are present when the vote is taken, a vote of 1-0 will adopt a motion.

Business can only be conducted at a regular or properly called meeting. The call of a special assessment meeting is not the call for a general membership meeting and trying to have a general membership meeting when one was not called is completely improper. RONR doesn't address this at all. If the quorum requirements are too onerous, the group should amend the bylaws to set the quorum to a more reasonable level and should never attempt to conduct business unless a proper call is issued.

Typically, rules in the bylaws may not be suspended: " Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be suspended—no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may be—unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension, or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order as described on page 17, lines 22–25" RONR (11th ed.), p. 263 Perhaps if you quote the passage in question, or provide a general description of what rule(s) they want to suspend, we can provide further guidance.

That sounds worse than not being able to adjust their votes.

I'm going to hold out until the Deluxe Edition comes out.

You can be assured that Mr. Novosielski's comments are not a personal attack in any way. You are right that any concerned member can, in a meeting, raise a point of order if the procedures in the bylaws or the adopted parliamentary authority are not being followed. Since you seem to have a rule addressing it, I'd suggest you do raise one if the rule is not followed.

If this is true why not just make sure this rule is followed without worrying about anything RONR says?

And, Guest Wendy, Mr. Honemann's reply also applies to entering into executive session (since you asked). No third vote or action is required to re-enter the board meeting.

The minutes of the meeting in question will reflect the election results for this office as well as the others, although I suppose a parenthetical note should be added that he as was absent and did not consent to his candidacy. The reason for doing so, in my view, is based on the facts you provided and due the following rule in RONR: " An election to an office becomes final immediately if the candidate is present and does not decline, or if he is absent but has consented to his candidacy. If he is absent and has not consented to his candidacy, the election becomes final when he is notified of his election, provided that he does not immediately decline. If he does decline, the election is incomplete, and another vote can be taken immediately or at the next meeting without further notice." RONR (11th ed.), p. 444 At the next meeting, the results of the completed election will be entered to those minutes.

I personally wouldn't be offended by it but I agree with Mr. Elsman that the comment was not proper. It seems to go toward the member's (your) motives. You should also note you were not compelled to abstain. See https://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#9

I think my good friend, J.J. missed that this was a committee, because committees are not required to keep or approve minutes at all. " In small committees, the chairman usually acts as secretary, but in large ones and many standing committees, a secretary may be chosen to keep a brief memorandum in the nature of minutes for the use of the committee." RONR (11th ed.), p. 500

What was said by the members is not recorded in the minutes at all. See §48. MINUTES AND REPORTS OF OFFICERS beginning on p. 468 in RONR (11th ed.) for a list of what the minutes should include.

Yes.

I think the citation mentioned earlier is applicable.

Is the regular presiding officer involved? If so, at the time the matter in question is going to be dealt with. Ideally, speaking to him about this ahead of time would be best because suspending the rules to remove the regular presiding officer can end up being a messy situation in the meeting itself.

You don't need to be silent regarding your position on the matter but you can't discuss the deliberations that went on in the committee. "But in debate on any written or oral report in the assembly, any member of the reporting committee who does not concur has the same right as any other member of the assembly to speak individually in opposition. No one can make allusion in the assembly to what has occurred during the deliberations of the committee, however, unless it is by report of the committee or by unanimous consent." RONR (11th ed.), p. 528

Your hypothetical motion doesn't seem to be a proper main motion to begin with as it's worded, but if something proper along those lines was adopted, the council, at the time the property is put up for sale, could rescind the adopted motion as it has not been carried out. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 308 b )

I would forget about these arguments. When the election is actually pending at the April meeting, a motion to postpone the election until the May meeting would be in order. In May, the bylaw amendments can be taken up first, followed by the election. RONR (11th ed.), p. 185.

From what you've written, you simply have two provisions which conflict, not two provisions which require interpretation. The proper course of action is to amend the bylaws to resolve this matter so that they no longer conflict.

There's no way for anyone here to know if he's wrong, but under the rules in RONR no one can claim to be an ex officio member of anything unless the governing documents say so. But since this is a town, there may be other applicable rules that do provide for this. You should check with the town's attorney (or as we say in PA and in some parts of the Free State of Maryland, the town's solicitor) to be sure.

He need not state a reason, nor does RONR provide a list of reasons. See FAQ#1 as well. https://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#1

No.