George Mervosh

No. From what I can see from your facts, the motion will need to be moved, seconded (unless coming from a committee) and stated by the chair before debate is even allowable. I gather from your facts they have not been moved at all in a meeting. Also note, with regards an Objection to the Consideration of a Question, that the objection cannot be applied to incidental main motions, such as a motion amend the bylaws, or a motion to amend some other previously adopted motion(s).

Minutes are taken in Executive Session. There is no requirement to distribute them but you do it would be distributed to only those entitled to attend it. RONR notes that: "The minutes, or record of proceedings, of an executive session must be read and acted upon only in executive session, unless that which would be reported in the minutes—that is, the action taken, as distinct from that which was said in debate—was not secret, or secrecy has been lifted by the assembly" RONR (11th ed.), p. 96

"Voting requirements based on the number of members present—a majority of those present, two thirds of those present, etc.—while possible, are generally undesirable. Since an abstention in such cases has the same effect as a negative vote, these bases deny members the right to maintain a neutral position by abstaining. For the same reason, members present who fail to vote through indifference rather than through deliberate neutrality may affect the result negatively. When such a vote is required, however, the chair must count those present immediately after the affirmative vote is taken, before any change can take place in attendance." RONR (11th ed.), p. 403

It could override the standard order of business, if adopted by a 2/3 vote. "At a session that already has an order of business, an agenda can be adopted by a majority vote only if it does not create any special orders and does not conflict with the existing order of business; otherwise, a two-thirds vote is required (see also p. 264, ll. 14–28). " RONR (p. 372) However it doesn't matter here as committees are not bound by the standard order of business.

This is incorrect. RONR makes no statement about a past president at all when it comes to a board. The board's composition is dictated by the bylaws.

Dr. Cisar's New Year greetings from the Land of the Rising Sun is something I look forward to each year. Happy New Year to all.

I'm thinking this should have stopped at post #2, or at least the thank you in post #3.

The rules may be suspended to permit another person to preside, yes. See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 651-653, including, of course the footnote on p. 652.

If the bylaws don't grant him any authority to change these things and RONR doesn't grant him any authority, it's incumbent upon him to document this authority he claims he has, not vice versa. Frankly, if he doesn't follow through with what the assembly has approved your group might want to consider disciplinary action against him. See §62 in RONR.

No rule in RONR gives him any such right.

What if there's a Vice Chair?

Until you rid yourself of "discussion items" and "action items" there's always going to be plenty of procedural problems, but your duty as presiding officer under RONR is to rule motions that violate the organization's rules out of order.

I suppose another successful strategy, assuming this is a committee that lacks a quorum, is for the appointing body to appoint some new members to replace the ones who aren't showing up. Unless of course they really want the committee discharged from considering the matter.

It's not strictly prohibited but not usual. "Good of the Order, General Good and Welfare, or Open Forum. This heading, included by some types of societies in their order of business, refers to the general welfare of the organization, and may vary in character. Under this heading (in contrast to the general parliamentary rule that allows discussion only with reference to a pending motion), members who obtain the floor commonly are permitted to offer informal observations regarding the work of the organization, the public reputation of the society or its membership, or the like. Certain types of announcements may tend to fall here. Although the Good of the Order often involves no business or motions, the practice of some organizations would place motions or resolutions relating to formal disciplinary procedures for offenses outside a meeting (63) at this point. In some organizations, the program (see below) is looked upon as a part of the Good of the Order. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 362

A defeated main motion may be renewed (made anew) at each subsequent session. Depending on the motion itself, objecting to its consideration may speed up the process of dealing with it each time. See §26. OBJECTION TO THE CONSIDERATION OF A QUESTION (RONR, p. 267ff) for full details.

"No one can make allusion in the assembly to what has occurred during the deliberations of the committee, however, unless it is by report of the committee or by unanimous consent. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 528 Does this get in the way of that strategy or at least make it more challenging to implement? (not rhetorical)

RONR has no help regarding your individual 3 reading rule, however, I suspect after the third reading, the proposed amendments will become pending and open to debate and other subsidiary motions, and at that time, you could move to postpone the motion to adopt the amendments. A majority vote is required. That's just my best guess.

"It should be noted that a member's absence from the meeting for which minutes are being approved does not prevent the member from participating in their correction or approval. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 355 Since you're a municipality you might want to check with your attorney (or solicitor as we call them here in PA and in some parts of the Free State of Maryland).

A vote of 1-0 adopts a motion, as long as a quorum is in the room. Next time please start a new topic as Mr. Gerber states here https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/25416-important-read-this-first-faq-and-information-for-new-members-and-guests/

The person they ran against does not automatically win that position. "When voting for multiple offices by a single ballot, the members are not able to take the result for one office into account when voting for another office. For this reason, a candidate is never deemed elected to more than one office by a single ballot unless the motion or rules governing the election specifically provide for such simultaneous election. When there is no such provision, a candidate who receives a majority for more than one office on a single ballot must, if present, choose which one of the offices he will accept; if he is absent, the assembly decides by vote the office to be assigned to him. The assembly then ballots again to fill the other office(s). (The assembly is free, however, to elect the same person to another office on a subsequent ballot, unless the bylaws prohibit a person from holding both offices simultaneously.) " RONR (11th ed.), p. 440

Sorry to veer off from Jamies' situation but I wondered about this as well https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/20385-executive-session/

So the answer is, no. If your hearing is, in effect, a trial, the rule in RONR requiring it to be held in executive session is not suspendable.

Was a trial conducted?

I don't think it fits neatly into the three categories of unfinished business found on p. 358, but I'm not willing to start a procedural war over it either.

If this is akin to a trial then this must be held in executive session.