George Mervosh

And see http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#20

They must be authorized by the bylaws or you can't have them and you'll need plenty of special rules to supplement that authorization. See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 97-99

No rule in RONR requires it. Discussion does not go into the minutes whether the board is in executive session or not. Just record what was done, not what was said.

"The name of the maker of a main motion should be entered in the minutes, but the name of the seconder should not be entered unless ordered by the assembly. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 470

See §63. INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL, beginning on p. 654 of RONR (11th ed.). It's much too much to summarize here.

"An individual member may not prefer charges, even if that member has proof of an officer's or member's wrongdoing. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 657. He can, in a properly called meeting of the membership move for a confidential investigation by a committee, but he cannot demand that such a committee be formed.

Yes, I think you're right. I was just responding to the one blanket statement Mr. Novosielski was making.

" A motion to rescind or amend provisions of a constitution or bylaws is subject to the requirements for amendment as contained in the constitution or bylaws (see 56, 57). If the bylaws or governing instrument contains no provision relating to amendment, a motion to rescind or amend applied to a constitution or to bylaws is subject to the same voting requirement as to rescind or amend special rules of order—that is, it requires (a) previous notice as described above and a two-thirds vote or (b) a vote of a majority of the entire membership. " RONR 11th ed., p. 307

That's not quite correct. "Special meetings can properly be called only (a) as authorized in the bylaws (see p. 576); or (b) when authorized by the assembly itself, as part of formal disciplinary procedures, for purposes of conducting a trial and determining a punishment (see footnote, p. 661)" RONR (11th ed.), p. 92.

Any change will require whatever notice and vote is required by the bylaws for their amendment. The size of the change is irrelevant.

He should not make it himself. He can solicit it, but better yet, in advance of the meeting ask someone who is going to be there, and who favors it to make it. Nothing wrong with a little pre-planning here.

Someone needs to make the motion, yes.

"INTERRUPTION OF VOTES. Interruptions during the taking of a vote are permitted only before any member has actually voted, unless, as sometimes occurs in ballot voting, other business is being transacted during voting or tabulating. For points of order regarding the conduct of a vote, see below and pages 250–51. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 408

If that type of membership is no longer a part of the bylaws, then the society has no such members.

Just a couple of extra things: 1) "The simple rising vote (in which the number of members voting on each side is not counted) is used principally in cases where a voice vote has been taken with an inconclusive result, and as the normal method of voting on motions requiring a two-thirds vote for adoption (see Chair's Announcement of the Voting Result, etc., below). " RONR (11th ed.), p. 46 The members need to make sure the chair starts taking a rising vote routinely for motions requiring a 2/3 vote. 2) Your members seem to let the chair get away with quite a bit (considering 7 seemed to question his actions and letting him adjourn the meeting abruptly). That needs to end as well.

Sadly, his fellow board members will probably be scratching their heads. They should all view the FAQs

No, but the motion to Lay on the Table is not a proper motion if you're just wanting to delay this motion until the next meeting. See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#12 and FAQ#13 which immediately follows it.

So what have you decided to do?

It's totally up to you if you wish to abstain or not. 3 passages from RONR discuss abstentions: "RIGHT OF ABSTENTION. Although it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on a question to express it by his vote, he can abstain, since he cannot be compelled to vote. By the same token, when an office or position is to be filled by a number of members, as in the case of a committee, or positions on a board, a member may partially abstain by voting for less than all of those for whom he is entitled to vote. ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON A QUESTION OF DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST. No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances. VOTING ON QUESTIONS AFFECTING ONESELF. The rule on abstaining from voting on a question of direct personal interest does not mean that a member should not vote for himself for an office or other position to which members generally are eligible, or should not vote when other members are included with him in a motion. If a member never voted on a question affecting himself, it would be impossible for a society to vote to hold a banquet, or for the majority to prevent a small minority from preferring charges against them and suspending or expelling them (61, 63). RONR (11th ed.), pp. 407-408

Or you could really try and shorten it up: "When the object is to adopt a motion without debate or amendment, the form is: MEMBER A (obtaining the floor): I move to suspend the rules and adopt [or "agree to"] the following resolution: "Resolved, That ..." (Second.) If such a motion does not receive the required two-thirds vote, the main motion can be taken up only in the normal way." RONR (11th ed.), pp. 266-67

Some of the cognoscenti do refer to it as amending something previously approved, Mr. Katz.

Yes, the minutes can still be approved. Perhaps during the approval process members will know who made the motions. Forget about recording seconds in the minutes unless the group has ordered that it be done. RONR does not require the minutes to show who seconded a motion.

I'm not going to even start reading that but our Guest I'm sure is grateful.

No, why would it? Just update the rule book to reflect what was properly adopted or send out some sort of addendum to it to reflect what was properly adopted.

http://www.parliamentarians.org/ and/or https://aipparl.org/find-a-parliamentarian/ There are also other professionals who do not belong to either organization.