George Mervosh

It means that notice of the intent to make the motion is given. It can either be given in a meeting (let's say in January for the February meeting), or it can be placed in the call of the meeting. I would not worry about it either way. If 2 of you are in favor of it, it will get done, since a vote of a majority of the entire board adopts this motion as far as RONR is concerned.

Certainly. All members present for additional rounds of voting may submit a ballot. But if the vote was by ballot, how do you know which member(s) turned in a blank one? I should add that if this vote is for a motion, not an election, no subsequent rounds of voting are necessary as the motion is defeated.

Perhaps you can add a set of facts to your question. Typically an appeal is handled immediately after the chair makes a ruling, so there isn't much of a halt.

The only limitation as to what can be considered at a special meeting is "The only business that can be transacted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting. " RONR (12th ed.), 9:15 No. See RONR (12th ed.), 9:13-16 for the complete rules regarding special meetings.

Since the motion from 2020 has not been acted upon, the 2020 motion may be amended from a motion to dedicate the meeting room to a motion to dedicate the town hall. See RONR (12th ed.), §35. Unless your town has its own voting requirements for the adoption such a motion (and if it does, it takes precedence), the voting requirement in RONR is noted in 35:2 7)

They would only be voting on the motion to ratify. But I totally agree that no facts seem to indicate a need to even entertain a motion to ratify.

By raising a point of order. See RONR (12th ed.), §23.

Try RONR (12th ed.), 23:5.

In a meeting of a committee, the chairman should never relinquish the chair to begin with. RONR notes that " In committees, the chairman is usually the most active participant in the discussions and work of the committee. " RONR (12th ed.), 50:25 As far as ex-officio members of committees are concerned see FAQ#2 here https://robertsrules.com/frequently-asked-questions/#faqs

Yes. Although this may not be what you are thinking, RONR gives an example of depriving members of such a right: "A provision can be included to dispense with the ballot when there is only one candidate for an office, although this deprives members of the privilege of voting for “write-in” candidates in such a case." RONR (12th ed.), 56:26

I would also refer you to Mr. Martin's post where he notes this (I think Mr. Novosielski was also trying to get this point across):

Yes. The motion to Fix The Time To Which To Adjourn would be used. The motion should specify where and when the meeting will reconvene and is adopted by a majority vote. See RONR (12th ed.), §22.

Not exactly. At a regular or properly called meeting a point of order should be made that those individuals did not meeting the requirements for holding office. The point of order will be ruled on by the chair and subject to appeal if necessary. If the point is well taken and not overturned on appeal, a new election for those two positions would be held. Those who were already a candidate for office but did not receive the required majority vote have no special status, but can be nominated for the positions along with any other eligible members. From your facts I'm not crystal clear that a proper point of order was made and ruled upon by the chair. Perhaps you can clarify that for us. See RONR (12th ed.), 46:48-9.

I think this is an important distinction because the rule is not suspendable at all, in my opinion.

I agree, especially because, 12:92 states that filling a blank is not a form of amendment in itself.

30:4 states "Methods of Voting. In practice, the method of taking a vote usually can be agreed upon informally. But when different methods are suggested, they are usually treated not as amendments but as filling blanks, the vote normally being taken first on the one taking the most time." So if they are usually treated not as amendments, are they amendments?

From 2:14 - "Such rules relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection." It is all about what goes on in a meeting, when it comes to rules of order. 62:10-14 are things that happen in a meeting and relate to the transaction of business.

No to both questions. See RONR (12th ed.), 2:14-22 regarding rules of order.

Any member can certainly make the motion to allow a non-member to speak at any time, but the vote required to adopt that motion will depend on whether or not the non-member wishes to speak in debate. If he wishes to speak in debate a 2/3 vote will be required, otherwise, a majority vote will be sufficient.

Mr. Merritt, since the motion to limit or extend the limits of debate was never adopted in your scenario, there is no unexhausted order, is there?

The board itself decides this and it applies until they rescind such a decision.

I don't see why it cannot. 35:6 notes an unexecuted part of an order can be rescinded. So if C is unexecuted and can be rescinded, why would it be improper to have C rescinded and expunged?

If your organization follows the standard order of business (RONR 12th ed., 41:5), elections may fall under Special Orders (41:20). If not, RONR suggest that they be held early in the meeting. RONR (12th ed.), 46:31

Absolutely, but thanks for confirming my thoughts regarding RONR.

I think it was in the 10th and removed from the 11th but please let me know, yes.