Joshua Katz

I don't know. As Mr. Honemann suggested, it may have been moved at the meeting. Have you looked at the minutes of the meeting, and what they say was adopted?

The person should be told "no." There is nothing to decide. Absentee voting is not permitted unless authorized in your bylaws. Correct. Yes, although they should specify exactly what is permitted.

No, both of those must be authorized in the bylaws (or higher ranking documents). Correct.

The change is as stated by the chair in putting the question to a vote. In practice, the chair is going to say the question is on the proposed amendment, so you'd be right. What else are people saying should change?

Yes, according to the rules in RONR. Any applicable state law would supersede.

RONR doesn't authorize anything similar to that; this whole procedure of the board being able to call a membership meeting is a creature of your bylaws. Since your bylaws, it seems, also do not authorize the board to call for a department-wide vote, it seems the board is not authorized to do so, unless there is a statute authorizing it.

Well, I agree that that motion is a motion to amend something previously adopted. But I don't see how that's relevant to whether or not the minutes reflect who requested a change in the draft agenda to include it, which is not a motion to amend something previosly adopted, since the agenda had not been adopted.

Procedurally, if the rules in RONR govern, he has every right to absent himself from executive session, just as he might miss a meeting. Whether there are any legally-enforceable obligations to his constituents is a question for a lawyer.

What does? To what does "it" refer?

Be careful. Law sometimes requires municipalities to make a negative decision (i.e. it is not enough to not grant a permit, it must be denied) and messing around with some thresholds while keeping others constant could cause trouble.

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?