George Mervosh

Other than offering the board's opinion on any proposed amendments, it's probably not, but nevertheless, if the bylaws require the board to something, the board must do it. Perhaps the membership could consider eliminating that requirement but the board cannot simply ignore it.

For those resolutions the committee has voted in favor of during the committee meetings, and the reporting member is a member of the body that is meeting, the language should be something such as "Mr. President, by direction of [or "on behalf of"] the committee, I move the adoption of the resolution just read. " (RONR, p. 515) rather than "do pass". If the committee has more than one member serving on it, and they are members of the body that is meeting, no second is required.

If they are part of the general membership, they can vote, and they most certainly can vote no. No rule in RONR compels a member to vote a certain way on any question. This goes for the other board members who initially voted in favor. They may be persuaded in debate to vote no as members of the general membership.

The person who took the minutes for the meeting in question is technically the Secretary Pro Tem, and can sign them.

Consider reopening nominations (it takes a majority vote) and perhaps a compromise candidate can be found. But keep voting until someone receives a majority of the votes cast.

Mr. Elsman answered your question here https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/34347-voting-on-motions/

He'll get to it within a quarterly time interval, I'm sure.

It is not correct. "An office carries with it only the rights necessary for executing the duties of the office, and it does not deprive a member of the society of his rights as a member." RONR (11th ed.), p. 448

No, but that's not a proper argument for him to make. A rule which does exist in RONR states" "Administrative Duties of the President of a Society. All of the duties of the presiding officer described above relate to the function of presiding over the assembly at its meetings. In addition, in many organized societies, the president has duties as an administrative or executive officer; but these are outside the scope of parliamentary law, and the president has such authority only insofar as the bylaws provide it. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 456

There is no prohibition in bring this up again at any regular or properly called meeting, assuming it is in order to begin with and if prior notice is required, that it is properly given.

See RONR (11th ed.), p. 251 for raising a point of order and §24. APPEAL beginning on p. 255 if you disagree with the ruling.

Captain Obvious, PRP, I suppose.

In my view, the best way to learn about the proper way to compose bylaws is by reviewing §56. CONTENT AND COMPOSITION OF BYLAWS beginning on p. 565 in RONR. If you follow the recommendations there, you'll be miles ahead of the game. The General Discussion forum is overloaded with examples of poorly written bylaws.

An additional round of voting by the board is required since no candidate received a majority of the votes cast in the first round. So, basically, the board keeps voting until a candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 438-41

Guest Mum's problems are strikingly similar to Nosey's issues.

Good. It's taken me 8 years to start to get a handle on the 11th Edition (probably because I'm one of those college graduates Mr. Tesser used to rant on about)

No rule in RONR would grant him any authority to do so.

As far as RONR is concerned It's too late now to worry about the adoption of an agenda for a meeting that has concluded, and I can't see why the board can't adopt those other items at its next meeting. But if this is a governmental body(since you have a clerk I thought it might be), you should check with the board's attorney for complete clarification including any additional notice that might be required.

Perhaps it's best to answer Mr. Harrison's question here https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/34246-trial-question/

I prefer to never have charges preferred against me.

Under the rules in RONR, at a meeting of the board, those who are not board members have no rights with reference to the proceedings of the board meeting and may not raise a point of order.. See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 648-649.

Since Aidan notes the board has the authority to conduct discipline, perhaps the footnote on p. 661 applies, but it's hard to tell from the facts if a trial was held.

Unless you were Guest Rider, see this from Mr. Gerber, particularly the second and third points. https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/25416-important-read-this-first-faq-and-information-for-new-members-and-guests/

It seemed clear to me the one cited by Mr. Martin.

Yes, a motion to suspend the rules is in order. In a small board or committees no such motion is necessary, but you probably already knew that.