Drake Savory

Totally agree. I used that word based on the OP and that many organizations don't understand that ex-officio members are members and so they would probably use that term incorrectly.

That is why I put "members" specifically in quotes. They would not be members with the right to vote or (in my example) make and second motions even if they were called that.

Assuming ex-officio "members" do not have the full rights of membership such as have the right to attend meetings and debate but no other member rights then can it be done outside the bylaws?

Parliamentary law aside, the real question is as far as the state is concerned, to be counted as a yes vote do you actually have to ... you know ... vote?

It still would be 5. 4 is not more than half.

What happened when the Chair presented the agenda for adoption? Did anyone try to amend them?

I would say the efficacy but as many here have said, that is a legal issue as to if they can count votes that way not a parliamentary one.

Following up on this, suppose a body knows the minutes need approved before the next meeting. Is there any reason they can't make a committee then and there of all present then adjourn the meeting, wait a few minutes for the Secretary to finish them up and send them out digitally, then in committee approve them?

Plus how many bodies know a thing even exists?

I gotta go with JJ here. There might be a time where a body must approve the minutes before the next meeting. Let's say a body needs to give their parent organization wants a copy of the minutes showing election of their delegates (someone complains the procedure used was wrong) and the next meeting is after the delegates meet? Yes that is contrived but it goes to show that it is possible for a rare occurrence to happen where the body cannot wait until the next meeting to approve the minutes. I don't think the OP was implying this was to be a regular thing but rather as needed.

I hear this all of the time and it hurts my parliamentarian brain. The purpose is to allow the Chair to move business items around as need be but it seems ... wrong. 1) Do any of our parliamentarians NOT have a problem with an agenda being adopted with flexibility and can tell me why I shouldn't either? 2) If the motion to adopt the agenda with flexibility is passed, then is Call for the Orders of the Day out of order? 3a) If instead of "with flexibility" the agenda is simply adopted, can the Chair on their own call for unanimous consent to Suspend the Rules to change the order on the agenda? 3b) And if there is an objection, can the Chair make that motion themselves?

That was my impression too. Most members would not know what exactly a rule of order is so it looks like they tried to be more specific but they mucked it up even more. Does business transactions relate to administration outside a meeting like if the bylaws ay the Treasure is to pay all bill the last week of the month? And are there standing rules in the bylaws? That would seem to conflict with 2:23(2).

Actually, under the OP's bylaw amendment wouldn't any motion to do X in a meeting with less than 25% attendance (assuming quorum meet) be passed even if everyone their voted no?

I just want to check to make sure I have this process down right. As soon as a motion to Reconsider and Enter Into the Minutes is moved and seconded all consideration on RaEItM stops until the next day. In other words, RaEItM is not debated or voted on but rather immediate moves a motion to Reconsider (or postpones the existing Reconsider on the floor if there is one) to be brought up the next day. Is that correct?

Rule 9:26 is what bans revealing information to nonmembers As for divulging information to members not present, Rule 47:36 gives them the right to review the minutes of executive sessions so the implication is that the information of what occurred can be shared with them.

What exactly do your rules say about calling special meetings and notice required?

And when and where? Could you publicly take the oath of office before the meeting?

Why not just move to Postpone Indefinitely? Why suspend the rules to do so?

Didn't we have a long thread in the Advanced section of the forum where almost everyone agreed you can't take action without a quorum other than actions to obtain a quorum which due to reality are going to fail. Here it is: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/39642-vacancies-blocking-quorum/ Although in that one the problem dealt with members not showing up. Are you claiming that if the problem is lack of members (e.g. quorum is 30 members but there are only 23 members and there must be a quorum to accept new members) then the rules of quorum do not apply? As Rob Elsman said in that thread

I agree with Mr. Gerber and that it falls under the body's right to assign charges to a committee. Assuming this survey does not fall under one of the charges given already to a committee, the motion would be something like, "I move to charge [pick one of the two committees] to send out a survey regarding tee times."

And to add, to properly kill a motion you use Postpone Indefinitely.

Motion to Postpone to a Certain Time

Or nobody since no one voted against the motion. Just like a person who abstains on a non 0-0 vote cannot move to reconsider.

Is that a quote from the minutes? Unless you have a special rule, you do not include who seconded the motion unless the assembly directs the Secretary to do that.

Yes but which class is the relevant one that needs a quorum?