Drake Savory

Not only emergencies. What if you have a dictatorial Chair who only puts on the agenda items THEY want discussed? As for Mr. Brown's last point, read up on Call for the Orders of the Day.

Does it make a difference if they were really nice typewriters?

I concur. According to our bylaws an organization I belong to uses "Robert's Rules of Order, Revised" and IIRC there was some discussion here over what edition our current parliamentary authority is.

Because of a timely issue the President of our organization held a vote by email, which is not allowed by the bylaws, to meet a legal requirement that a certain expenditure is approved by the Board. The executive committee can act for the Board between meetings as well. So it seems to me that the action (spending the money) still needs to be Ratified. What I'm stuck on is what exactly needs to be ratified. Is it that action of the executive committee in spending the money since it needed approval of a larger assembly (I don't have my RONR handy but I know I read that under the motion to Ratify) and that vote was never legally taken before the money was spent or are we ratifying the vote that was taken by an invalid method because I'm not 100% sure that an invalid vote can be ratified.

should be held or must be held?

Looking at p124 l10-18 What is the effect of accepting a committee report? I'm not referring to a motion arising from the report but rather accepting the report itself. Consequently, what happens when the motion to accept the report fails?

Here's a question: would it make a difference if the un-amendability provision is within the section itself? I think so. Example 1) Section 3: The Chair shall be addressed as Dominus et Deus; Section 4: Section 3 shall never ever be repealed or amended. Solution) Repeal Section 4 then amend/repeal Section 3 Example 2) Section 3 The Chair shall be addressed as Dominus et Deus. This section shall never ever be repealed or amended. Solution) ???

I get that but if the parliamentarian is acting qua committee chair reporting out on the committee's decisions then they are acting impartially especially if they do not debate the motion.

I like the OP's idea of removing ex-officio references. I find that in my organization it is implied that "ex-officio" implies "not a full member"*. But what about this: defining ex-officio in the Standing Rules, Special Rules of Order or Bylaws so that everyone is clear what it means now and in the future. It would also give the body freedom to define ex-officio to suit their needs so for example Past Presidents that are ex-officio members of the Board don't count for the quorum (that could be bad if there is a small Board and are a lot of PPs that never go to meetings). *Of course I correct them.

If a committee of more than one member includes a motion as part of its report a second is not needed because it is presumed that a second committee member agrees the motion should be brought before the assembly, why couldn't the same presumption be made here if two members other than the parliamentarian are on the committee, specifically that the two non-parliamentarian members feel the motion should come before the assembly.

There are motions that could delay a vote but those would have to be approved by the membership, not the Chair