Shmuel Gerber

If the governing documents give alternates that right (even when not acting as voting members), then yes. Otherwise, no.

Robert's Rules also says that financial assessments cannot be imposed on members except as provided in the bylaws.

Yes, in that case the alternate is essentially a guest and would have only such rights as are granted in the bylaws or equivalent governing document.

Questions regarding the application of a statute should be directed to legal counsel. As far as Robert's Rules is concerned, non-board members do not have any rights with respect to notice of or participation in meetings of the board or its committees.

It goes into effect the moment the chair declares that it has been adopted.

It seems inappropriate to me to specifically allow the member with a conflict of interest to preside. "47:10 Whenever a motion is made that refers only to the presiding officer in a capacity not shared in common with other members, or that commends or censures him with others, he should turn the chair over to the vice-president or appropriate temporary occupant (see below) during the assembly’s consideration of that motion, just as he would in a case where he wishes to take part in debate (see also 43:29–30). The chair, however, should not hesitate to put the question on a motion to elect officers or appoint delegates or a committee even if he is included."

Somebody was way ahead of me on this one. https://legalkeyboards.com/products/legalboard

RONR, 12th ed, Sec.57 Good (next) morning, everyone. Mr. Honemann, we've got to get you a Deluxe Edition keyboard so you can press the official “§” button. 🙂

You mean other than flogging the members of the programs committee on the Regional Executive Board?

To clarify, by "questions raised later," I mean questions raised after the member who made the motion has yielded the floor after his speech in debate, but still while the pending motion is being debated (or at least before the motion has been put to a vote).

I understand that, which is why I'm recommending that you start by reading the official In Brief guide. In my opinion, that is a better way to get a handle on the basics than by attempting to get one question answered at a time in this forum — although you are welcome to try. In Robert's Rules, there is no such category as "old business." If an item of new business is postponed or formally carried over from one meeting to the next, it is considered under unfinished business or general orders. If it is not formally carried over, then the assembly is finished with it, but it can be brought up again at another meeting as new. A member should think about what it is that he or she wants done — preferably before the meeting and in consultation with some other members — with enough clarity to make a proposal in the form of a motion. The member should make the motion at the meeting (after seeking and obtaining recognition from the chair) and pass a written copy to the chair, or submit a written copy to the secretary before the meeting. Before the member makes the motion, there should not be any debate, although the chair may guide some some brief discussion to come up with a properly worded motion. After the chair restates the member's motion, the member is entitled to first preference in obtaining the floor, at which point he or she can explain the motion and speak in favor it. During this speech, the member may consent to be interrupted for questions while speaking. The chair can also allow the member to respond to factual questions raised later, but the member who made the motion is not entitled to enter again into debate until after every other member who wishes to speak in debate has had the opportunity to do so. If Robert's Rules has been adopted, then at some point the members must have been convinced that it should be followed. If you are the president, you already were given the job of following those rules and you should not first try to convince the rest of the members of anything other than what the rules actually say. You do not need to make reference to improper procedures of the past, but simply explain what the correct procedure is.

Robert's Rules does not mandate separate minutes of executive sessions.

Well, at least at the national level, I think there is still great respect shown for following the rules of order. For example, when a Democratic congressman recently wanted to interrupt a vote that wouldn't go his way, he knew better than to make a ruckus on the floor of the House. Instead, he pulled a fire alarm outside the chamber.

No. If you want to learn how a meeting is supposed to be conducted, you really ought to at least get a copy of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief and read it. Then you should come here to ask questions about anything you find confusing, or difficult to apply to a particular situation. First of all, a meeting does not need to have an agenda, as Robert's Rules contains a standard order of business that is adequate for the regular meetings of most organizations. Second, there are often reports from officers, boards, and committees, which may contain explanations and recommendations regarding particular items of business. At the appropriate point in the order of business (or as provided for on an agenda of a particular meeting), these reports may be delivered by the reporting officer or member without any motion first having been made on the subject. If any action is to be taken following such reports, or at the initiative of a member without a report having been given, then a motion to take the particular action should be made — not a motion to discuss the item. After the motion is made (and seconded if required), debate is had on whether or not to take the action proposed by the motion. Finally, when the debate has ended, the motion is voted on by the assembly.

I suggest reading the official books. The Robert's Rules method is motion first, then debate, then vote. The purpose of debate is to hear reasons for or against adopting the motion, or suggestions for improvement (motions to Amend) or other subsidiary actions.

They are considered present because they are, in fact, present.

Abstentions are not votes, so 22 is a majority of the votes cast. Members who abstain are considered present, however.

Even if there is no revision reported by a committee that has been authorized to draft a revised set of bylaws, a set of extensive changes may still be considered in the form of a substitute to the existing bylaws. However, if such a substitute is not an authorized revision, then any amendments proposed to the substitute while it is pending must be confined to the areas of change as compared to the existing bylaws and must not propose a greater change than that for which notice has been given.

I agree. This seems like an exceptionally unwise rule. First of all, if you're simply trying to remove the right of an individual member to demand that the motion be read, then that is what the rule should say. There is probably no reason to forbid the text from being read, and there's almost certainly no reason to forbid suspension of the rule.

I think this discussion has become a bit tangled because the OP's question included the premise shown in boldface here: "When RONR is adopted by motion for a meeting (no PA specified in the bylaws), can a bylaw provision in the nature of a rule of order be suspended?" Setting aside that premise, the question becomes "When no parliamentary authority is specified in the bylaws, can a bylaw provision in the nature of a rule of order be suspended?" According to RONR: "2:21 Rules of order—whether contained in the parliamentary authority or adopted as special rules of order—can be suspended by a two-thirds vote as explained in 25 (with the exceptions there specified). Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can (with the exceptions specified in 25) also be suspended by a two-thirds vote; but, except for such rules and for clauses that provide for their own suspension, as stated above, rules in the bylaws cannot be suspended." This paragraph contains no caveat as to whether RONR has been adopted as the organization's parliamentary authority—whether in the bylaws, by a main motion applying to all meetings, or by a main motion applying to a single meeting—or not. So the answer is: According to RONR, yes. And, apparently, according to J. J., no. The benefit of the assembly's having adopted RONR by motion for a meeting (where no PA has been specified in the bylaws) is not that RONR will supersede some conflicting provision in the bylaws—indeed, even when RONR is adopted in the bylaws it still does not supersede any conflicting provisions. Rather, the benefit of the assembly's having adopted RONR by motion for a meeting is that the assembly has expressed its desire to follow the rules in RONR, and so, to paraphrase RONR 2:18, what J. J. may have to say in conflict with the adopted parliamentary authority then has no bearing on the case. 🙂

The president does not have the inherent authority to appoint persons to fill a vacancy, but may do so only if the bylaws provide that. It would not be correct that the next vote-getter automatically fills the position.

Then it seems particularly ill-advised that "Many of our school boards have in their by-laws that the Vice Chair, chair their Executive Sessions (in-camera)" because it would only lead to confusion on the trustees' part as to whether an executive session of the board is actually being held (under some exception to the general law) or an executive session of a committee of the whole is being held, in which case the actions of the committee are not the actions of the board.

The presence of a quorum seems irrelevant, because a motion to adjourn does not require the presence of a quorum, whether one is speaking strictly or friendlily. If the maneuver was valid, it was valid without a quorum. And if it was invalid, any absentee whose rights were violated could make a fuss about it.

What board, and why?

It doesn't take a suspension of the rules for the regular presiding officer (and those next in line) to relinquish the chair, at least according to RONR 43:29, 47:11, and 47:13. They certainly can willingly step aside; the only question is whether this is a violation of the bylaws and/or neglect of duty.