George Mervosh

The first thing to note is: "If the bylaws require the election of officers to be by ballot and there is only one nominee for an office, the ballot must nevertheless be taken for that office unless the bylaws provide for an exception in such a case. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 441 If a ballot vote is not required or the exception is in the bylaws, and there is only one nominee, the only way to object to the chair declaring that person elected is to nominate someone else. If that happens a vote is taken to determine the winner.

And see http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_18

At our 2FP meetings we can always find a way to pass the time when this happens, right?

Here is how RONR defines previous notice of a motion - "The term previous notice (or notice), as applied to necessary conditions for the adoption of certain motions, has a particular meaning in parliamentary law. A requirement of previous notice means that announcement that the motion will be introduced—indicating its exact content as described below—must be included in the call of the meeting (p. 4) at which the motion will be brought up, or, as a permissible alternative, if no more than a quarterly time interval (see pp. 89–90) will have elapsed since the preceding meeting, the announcement must be made at the preceding meeting." RONR (11th ed.), p. 121 It appears announcing it at a meeting isn't an option for your group, but you can look at exactly what your bylaws say and see if it seems to fit what RONR has in mind for previous notice. If you feel your rule has been violated, raise a point of order as soon as the motion is made to adopt the budget.

I doesn't seem that members are being excluded from either meeting. Whichever meeting starts first, at the outset, a member can move to Fix The Time To Which To Adjourn (RONR, p. 243ff). The motion requires a second and takes a majority vote to adopt. The purpose is to set the time (and the motion should state at what time) to continue the meeting (obviously a time after the second meeting ends). If it's adopted by majority vote, the next motion to make is to move to adjourn. If adopted that meeting ends and will start again at the time specified in the earlier motion. Now there's only one meeting to deal with at a time and at the appointed time the adjourned meeting can begin again where it left off.

1) A member makes the motion. 2) Another member seconds the motion. 3) The chair states the question - which places it before the assembly. 4) Debate occurs - assuming anyone wants to debate it. 5) The chair puts the question to a vote 6) The chair announces the result.

RONR (11th ed.), p. 429

Yes, I think I would. Harm to the rights of members or things which could give rise to a continuing breach are my red lines no matter which hat I'm wearing at a meeting.

I think they are important. The exact parliamentary situation at the time would tell me if it's the right thing to do.

There is no requirement for board impartiality in RONR. Many times a board will offer recommendations in their reports to the members. During actual debate on a pending motion there is no collective statement permitted since it's only one member at a time debating, but they certainly could have adopted a motion in advance of the meeting which stated their opinion on the matter.

Yeah, I bet that is a mood killer.

Nominations are debatable. RONR (11th ed.), tinted pp. 18-19, motion 49. The normal rules of decorum and debate apply. Just as with other motions a member need not offer any remarks when nominating someone.

Yes. See p. 379, 2) b )

it's likely the motion to lay on the table was misused. See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#12 and FAQ#13 that immediately follows it. if more than one meeting (session) has elapsed since it was laid on the table or if your meetings are held less often than a quarterly time interval, it's dead - all of it. Just make whatever motion you want anew. If these are bylaw amendments, follow that process to amend them anew.

In my opinion, no. I think what you want to do does go beyond prefacing a motion with a few words. You're advocating for it's adoption and providing the reasoning. I think that stretches the rule too far.

You're referring to this passage, it seems - "If an actual minority in a representative meeting makes improper use of this motion by moving to reconsider and enter on the minutes a vote which requires action before the next regular meeting, the remedy is to fix the time for an adjourned meeting (9, 22) on another suitable day when the reconsideration can be called up and disposed of. In such a case, the mere making of a motion to set an adjourned meeting would likely cause withdrawal of the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes, since its object would be defeated. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 335 Given your posting I'd suggest saying all of that prior to making the motion is improper. Since it's likely the motion will be made when no other business is pending you should just save it for debate, assuming that the motion to reconsider and enter on the minutes is not withdrawn..

No rule in RONR prohibits it.

Maybe the unruly member really is unnameable.

And if the President voted right along with everyone else and it ended in a tie vote, he cannot vote again to break a tie. The motion would simply be defeated or if it's an election, additional rounds of voting may be necessary.

See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#9 and it would really be best if he had a couple of friends make and second the motion.

Well whatever you think is a big problem with the nomination process is now rather small. The above quoted action is completely improper and it's possible your officers' terms have expired and you have no officers. Now that's a big problem.

I don't think a motion to make the entire building non-smoking conflicts with your cited rule.

The adoption of a standing rule, such as this, requires a majority vote to adopt. RONR (11th ed.), p. 18

She read nothing of the sort, at least in RONR.

Then Mr. Honemann's answer still stands. Time to move on.