Benjamin Geiger

Pretty significant chunks of chapter 18 (the one OP linked to) appear to come straight from the official RONR FAQ, which is itself pulled from RONRIB.

I'm not aware of one. You could always take Gandhi's advice and "be the change you wish to see in the world". (Or you could take Nike's (and Shia LeBeouf's) advice and "just do it".) If you find one, or create one, let me know because I'll join.

That's a legal question, not a parliamentary one. You'll need to check your local laws or ask an attorney. In assemblies following RONR, however, nobody has 'veto power' unless the bylaws explicitly say so.

Officially, every Toastmasters club I've ever attended has used RONR as its parliamentary authority. (I vaguely remember that it's actually required by the US organization and highly encouraged elsewhere, but I haven't been a Toastmaster in almost a decade.) In practice, it's much more common to see "Bob's Rules" or "Telephone Rules". Most members don't read RONR; they learn by watching members who learned from watching members who learned from watching members who might have skimmed one of the public-domain editions once.

I interpreted the question as one of "what do we do next time"/"what should we have done". And I should've thought to look up further information under the Previous Question's entry.

Also, what do you mean by "approve a personnel report"? As a general rule, reports aren't "approved" except in rare circumstances. Were you voting on a motion recommended in a committee report? For more information, you may wish to read pages 507-508.

That's basically the point of the motion to Reconsider. As I'm reading it, yes: So, as I understand it, someone who voted on the prevailing side could move to Reconsider. If that motion passes, a member can move to amend the motion being reconsidered. Of course, this is subject to several assumptions, including that the motion to Reconsider is still in order (i.e. it's the same session), and that the Previous Question wasn't moved. I'm not 100% certain how the Previous Question interacts with Reconsider, but as I'm reading the standard characteristics for Reconsider (specifically p. 320, ll. 17-21), it seems to me as though a motion that was subject to the Previous Question during its original passage wouldn't be amendable during its reconsideration.

Ah, that's interesting. Thanks for the information.

AKA "most of the 'Robert's Rules of Order' books on the shelf these days". (I bought one long ago, back before I knew RONR was a thing. It's basically the 4th edition with minimal tweaks.) That makes sense, but for future reference the generally accepted abbreviation is "RONR", which I presume expands to "Rules of Order Newly Revised". Not sure why there's not another R.

Nonexistent presidents may chair nonexistent hypothetical societies. Also, what you did there: I see it.

Items can be struck from a draft agenda by a majority vote, just as with any other item being amended. However, unless the bylaws or a special rule of order says otherwise, any member can simply move the resolutions during the New Business portion of the meeting (provided someone is willing to second). If a majority of the members are willing to strike the resolutions from the agenda, that doesn't bode well for its passage, but that doesn't mean it can't be attempted.

Alice and/or Bob works well enough when the actual president is nonbinary or nonexistent.

Art thou? But in seriousness, yeah, even when "they" is used as a singular pronoun, it still conjugates as plural. Another option for the OP is to create people to fill the roles, a la cryptography's Alice and Bob.

You need a minimum of 2/3 of the votes cast (not the number of members unless your bylaws say otherwise). 7 is less than 2/3 of 11, so yes, you need at least eight votes in this case. EDIT: See also FAQ #5.

The other option to consider would be formal disciplinary action, as laid out in chapter XX of RONR (pp. 643ff). It would let you remove the president from office or impose other forms of punishment beyond a mere "bad boy". It's not the most straightforward process in RONR, but it's necessary to protect the rights of both the accused and the organization.

The concept of 'executive session' is covered on pp. 95f. A more colloquial term would probably be "secret meetings" (secret from nonmembers, not from members, unless your bylaws provide otherwise).

I presume that this would require a 2/3 vote (or unanimous consent), as it's effectively implementing special rules of order? Nitpick: 487-488.

It also depends on the state. Some states (notably Florida) have "sunshine laws", requiring that all governmental business be conducted "in the sunshine" (metaphorically speaking). In general, these laws specify that any time two or more members of certain governmental bodies discuss business, it's considered a 'meeting' and records of that meeting (minutes, etc) must be made available to the public. But that's a legal issue, not a parliamentary one.

Ah, I misunderstood the situation, then. I read it such that the minutes for the March meeting would be approved at the end of the April meeting.

It makes sense that reading and approving the minutes would occur at the beginning of the meeting. It provides a reminder of where the organization left off at the last meeting. Plus, without the current meeting having already happened, it's easier to remember the last meeting.

To expel them from membership, assuming nothing specific is said in the bylaws, you'd need to go through the disciplinary process. See chapter XX. (It's complex but it needs to be to protect everyone's rights.)

It's not typical by any stretch. It's rude. But RONR doesn't prohibit it. Have you talked to other members to see if they've noticed her behavior? Given enough support you may have options, ranging from censure up to removal of the chair.

Small boards are why I said "under most circumstances"; they're one of the major exceptions. Under small board rules, the chair isn't required to remain impartial. Small board rules are on pages 487-488.

Let's set aside the question of her treating you differently from other members. The person chairing a meeting, under most circumstances, should remain impartial, not taking either side in debate, and only voting when their vote would directly affect the outcome (to break a tie to cause a motion to pass, or to cause a tie to cause the motion to fail). The chair actively rebutting your statements in debate is improper unless she yields the chair. Pages 394-395 go into more detail.

The organization I belong to effectively requires 2/3 of those present and voting to "second" any new business. I've been working to get that removed.