Joshua Katz

Yes. A rejected motion may be made again at a subsequent session. Being voted down does not prevent it from being raised again at a separate session.

Yes. But it would be in order to move the previous question when it is moved, so that not much time is spent (unless people want to spend the time).

Such activity violates no rules in RONR. Depending on the type of organization, there may be relevant open meeting rules. I can't give a citation in RONR because this is a case of the absence of such rules.

This is incorrect. Any deliberative assembly may enter into an executive session. At a meeting of the membership, it is the membership that is entering into executive session, so any non-members are dismissed, but the board has nothing to do with it. Then the assembly can, as you say, discuss sensitive and confidential matters.

One point that may be helpful to clarify: have these board members decided to retain a parliamentarian for themselves, i.e. a floor parliamentarian advising a particular faction, or was this a board motion that established that the organization shall have a parliamentarian, who will advise the chair?

As the great philosopher Panayot Buchvarov once said, why ought one to do what one ought to do? Because one ought to do it.

Demand? No. A proposed agenda is not an agenda until it is adopted by the body. If, say, the chair presents a proposed agenda, to be approved at the meeting, the chair is free to include or not include whatever he'd like. When others make suggestions, they are just that, and not an action. If you believe the item does not belong on the agenda, you can ask the chair not to include it, or, if that doesn't work, move to amend to delete it when the agenda is pending for adoption. Alternatively, some motion will need to be made, and you can vote no on that.

Agreeing with Mr. Novosielski that that would be how it is done, I'd add that I don't see much reason for a parliamentarian to speak at a meeting.

There's a whole body of people who can make motions.

Yes, regardless whether it is a revision or amendment. You're right that a revision must come from a body authorized for that purpose, otherwise it's just a series of amendments. I tend to take questions at face value, perhaps more than others here - if someone tells me it's a revision, I typically don't question it, unless something stands out. That's just me, though. On another note, if you're going to be actively answering questions, which is appreciated, might we convince you to join the forum?

When your bylaws authorize proxy voting, they (or another of your rules) should give the rules for conducting it. Figuring out the details of how it works, as a result, involves combing through those rules, not RONR, which we aren't in a position to do.

I disagree, because: When considering a revision, the entire document stands open to amendment, as notice of a revision is notice of any possible germane amendments.

Indeed.

It seems to me that this language, in accordance with the general rule, depends on the number of living, breathing board members, not positions. So when there are vacancies, the quorum will be lowered accordingly.

How do you know the mayor is a member?

Is the president a member? Does he have a vote?

When you say are you saying that because that is a majority and RONR says the quorum is a majority? Or is there a bylaw provision setting the quorum? As in all matteres, the assembly is in charge, not the chair. The assembly, unless there are applicable rules, can decide if it wants to allow visitors at its meeting. The chair can invite people, but the assembly is free to say no.

The question isn't whether it violates RONR, since none of this procedure comes from RONR. It's whether it violates your rules. Your organization seems, at least thus far, to have interpreted it as not doing so. I tend to agree, although my opinion isn't material. I don't think such a rule is wise, unless forced on you by governing law, because it gives too much power to the person who prepareds the agenda. (Do your rules say that the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs does so?) But here we are. The member will need to try to add it by a 2/3 vote of the faculty, after your organization decides what that means. (2/3 of those present and voting, or of the entire membership?)

An amendment takes effect immediately upon adoption. However, the motion to adopt the amendment may contain a proviso setting a later time. The proviso should not be incorporated into the amendment. I move to amend the constitution by striking X and inserting in its place Y, provided that the amendment shall take effect on the adjournment of the meeting in which it is adopted.

Well, in that case, he should be advised that, as far as RONR is concerned (law is a different matter), it is way too late to complain. Indeed, it was probably too late to complain when the election took place, let alone now that, most likely, the terms involved are over. So if he is keen to enforce RONR, he's barking up the wrong tree on that specific complaint.

Oh.

https://www.parli.com/

I've never worked with that book, but working off the description by the publisher, it seems to be that, plus to incorporate a set of rules for HOAs, answering questions to which RONR provides no answer. One thing to check for: some books on parliamentary procedure, such as RONR IB, contain a statement to the effect that this book is not intended as a parliamentary authority, and if the bylaws make it the parliamentary authority, they should be understood to instead refer to RONR.

I think the bolded portions above deal with this objection. If the bylaws say "the order of bsiness shall be as prescribed in RONR," they are not otherwise silent on the question of the order of business. Put another way, your question is akin to asking if a special rule of order may override a bylaw, when the bylaw incorporates RONR by reference. I don't think the latter matters. But in the case presented by the OP, there was no bylaw to override.

No, but the board itself can vote to demand them. However, they may be disappointed as committees are not required to keep minutes. No, but to the extent the VMs form a deliberative body, it can demand the minutes. Unless I'm missing it, I don't think you told us where the board fits into this structure. Yes, except as noted above, and understanding that committees are not obligated to keep minutes, their report being the record of what was decided.