George Mervosh

RONR does not speak to this specific issue but won't the membership decide this matter via the approval process?

Mr. Katz and Mr. Elsman have answered this question.

It means at the next meeting they should be presented again for approval and this time, by following the rules in RONR, no vote is taken on the approval of the minutes, and they will be approved in some final form. "After any proposed corrections have been disposed of, and when there is no response to the chair's inquiry, "Are there any corrections [or "further corrections"] to the minutes?" the chair says, "There being no corrections [or "no further corrections"] to the minutes, the minutes stand [or "are"] approved [or "approved as read," or "approved as corrected"]." The minutes are thus approved without any formal vote, even if a motion for their approval has been made. The only proper way to object to the approval of the secretary's draft of the minutes is to offer a correction to it. It should be noted that a member's absence from the meeting for which minutes are being approved does not prevent the member from participating in their correction or approval." RONR (11th ed.), pp. 354-355 Also, when there's a change in membership for a board, the board, at its last meeting before the change, should appoint a committee to approve them. After that just approve them the regular way, following RONR's rules.

RONR imposes no term limits on officers. Only the bylaws can. Do your bylaws have term limits? See the bottom of p. 574 continuing to p. 575.

Ok, ok, I suppose pounding your fists on the table and yelling that you quit technically means he's giving his resignation orally in a meeting, but I'm probably jaded by the fact I've seen it several times and none have ever really meant it as a resignation request. The outraged member should be very glad our quick thinking friend Mr. Harrison wasn't in the assembly or it's likely he'd have been out if the board had the powers noted above.

The maker may vote against but he may not speak against his own motion. "REFRAINING FROM SPEAKING AGAINST ONE'S OWN MOTION. In debate, the maker of a motion, while he can vote against it, is not allowed to speak against his own motion. He need not speak at all, but if he does he is obliged to take a favorable position. If he changes his mind while the motion he made is pending, he can, in effect, advise the assembly of this by asking permission to withdraw the motion (pp. 295–97). " RONR (11th ed.), p. 393

It's a stretch to say this was a proper resignation request, but even if you feel it was, he didn't need to do a thing except show up again and participate, which basically withdrew any perceived request. So he's not out. See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#18

There are a number of secondary motions which may be made by a member who has been assigned the floor for debate when another motion is pending. Can you add a few facts to clarify the situation?

No. Elections are held when the bylaws say they are held.

Yes. https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/33619-suspending-of-bylaws/

In addition to Dr. Stackpole's post, there's another part of the bolded quote you have wrong. See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#1

Even though I used the singular in the previous response, it doesn't change my opinion (which stay tuned, others may disagree with). No.

Absolutely. I apologize for being unclear. I edited my post above

Here is the rule in RONR: "When any paper is laid before the assembly for action, it is a right of every member that it be read once; and, if there is any debate or amendment, that it be read again before members are asked to vote on it." RONR (11th ed.), p. 299 In your case, the assembly isn't voting on it because they can't adopt these proposed amendments, but rather, they may want to give you instructions as their voting delegate on how to vote on particular amendments or instructions suggesting how you should propose amendments to the proposed amendments. In my view they do need to be read aloud on the demand of a single member since there may be a motion arising out of it to provide you with the aforementioned instructions.

Absolutely not. RONR (11th ed.), p. 263 and p. 445. A point of order can be raised at any regular or properly called meeting since the election for those particular unqualified individuals would be null and void.

You said the teen group has their own bylaws so I'm not sure why they would be bound by any provision in the other bylaws unless it's stated someplace else. Either way, even if there was a breach of the rules in the nomination process the point of order would have needed to be timely, therefore, in my opinion, the election stands and it's time to move on.

It seems fine and no, a person does not have to give a reason for declining a nomination.

"A society has no executive board, nor can its officers act as a board, except as the bylaws may provide; and when so established, the board has only such power as is delegated to it by the bylaws or by vote of the society's assembly referring individual matters to it. The amount of regular power delegated to an executive board under the bylaws varies considerably from one organization to another." RONR (11th ed.), p. 482 We have no clue, nor can anyone here determine exactly what powers your board has as it relates to a meeting of the membership, because those powers are to be spelled out in your bylaws and perhaps other rules.. Mr. Honemann has stated twice now that the board and the membership cannot conduct business at the same time and place, regardless of the powers each has.

"ACTIONS THAT CANNOT BE RESCINDED OR AMENDED. The motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted are not in order under the following circumstances: c) When a resignation has been acted upon, or a person has been elected to or expelled from membership or office, and the person was present or has been officially notified of the action." RONR (11th ed.), p. 308 That is the rule in RONR. So it does not appear that the resignation can be rescinded based upon your stated facts.

See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#8

I'll take your word for it that it was a breach of decorum and the committee members may raise a point of order if something like this happens again and they feel it is a breach,, but I wouldn't do anything else beyond that without checking with the town's legal counsel.

The only way to resolve what took place and prevent it from happening again, according to RONR is to report the matter to the superior body, which one would guess is the Town, and let the Town handle the matter since you haven't indicated other committee members are even willing to raise a point of order. "A standing or special committee may protect itself against breaches of order by its members during committee meetings, and against annoyance by nonmembers, by employing the procedures outlined on pages 645–49, but the committee, instead of itself imposing any penalty on a disorderly member, can only report such behavior to the committee's parent body, which may then take such action as it deems advisable." RONR (11th ed.), p. 501 Your second and third sentences are why Dr. Kapur suggested contacting (presumably the Town's) legal counsel.

NAP made that mistake 3 times in the last edition of the National Parliamentarian

I didn't get the impression the insulted party was a member of the committee that was meeting.

I think that the full report should also be attached to the minutes since the full report was apparently adopted.