Drake Savory

Except as written one could interpret it was meant to refer to one of the classes. I think we can all agree it is poorly written and quite ambiguous.

Basically a quorum of Class A has already voted and approved the amendment so if only one class is the "relevant class" for the second vote - why would it be Class A again?

Nope. For it to go to Class A and B it has already been passed by Class A so if a quorum is needed to ratify the bylaws amendment then a quorum of them should be requires as a quorum of Class A has already shown they approve of it.

Except "class" is singular. If I were a member and given what the OP has posted I would interpret it as a majority of class B only but as we always say, it is up to them to decide what it means.

What about if the assembly voted (2/3) to remove the day/time/place/etc. out of the bylaws completely. Then they could pass a standing rule as to day/time/place/etc. by a majority vote. This also has the advantage that day/time/place/etc. can be changed simply through Amend Something Previously Adopted which is much simpler in most cases than passing a(nother) bylaws amendment.

Doesn't this imply that a member can vote against preferring charges or expelling themselves?

And the Previous Question is out of order in committee. 16:4

Why shouldn't they? There is no problem with them voting on their appointment to an office and that could be considered "a direct personal ... interest not common to other members of the organization"

Under 50:26 committees (unless authorized) cannot make their own rules. What is the extent of that ban? Can a committee still make rules for the running of their meetings such as "The Vice-Chair shall act as recording secretary." or "The committee shall meet every 3rd Thursday at 7pm at the lodge-house."?

I would assume because the immediate past president is just that. No other past president can be the last one to have served as President before the current one. So if the current President were to die in office, there would be no immediate past president to serve on the Board. How do your bylaws define "immediate past president"?

Depending on the OP's definition of "discriminatory" and "exclusionary", the motion may also violate basic Parliamentary Law. For example, "I move that no member of (insert political party here) be allowed to vote on the main motion."

Assuming the quorum situation is settled (How do your bylaws define a member?) then any unanimous vote, even 1-0, would carry a motion. And I suspect that these are regular main motions so in that case under RONR, any majority vote (1-0; 2-1, 2-0; 3-2; 3-1, 3-0, etc.) would carry the motion.

One issue I have with this is it sounds like the Chair is pre-debating i.e. having their views on the motion known before the motion is made as they cannot enter debate once the motion is made. I suppose the Chair could just be providing objective information but we would need more information from the OP to know for sure. ETA: Yes I know this would be allowed with small board rules.

There could be a bylaw stating that should the budget not be approved, the Budget & Finance Committee shall take action to ...

Am I correct that should this amendment passes, the assembly needs to immediately elect a Secretary pro-tem until the new Secretary takes office?

Maybe the maker of the motion asked for unanimous consent to make the motion and waive the first reading. Thus there was no second but without objection that motion was in order.

I think technically he is. According to their bylaws, you only need to be a member of the Board when selected. Unless there is another rule elsewhere that we don't know about, you remain an officer even if you leave the Board.

Why was the motion due for a vote? Was it a motion from a previous meeting that was postponed and then brought up as a special order? Was it really not a motion but rather a talking point to discuss in order to formulate a proper main motion? A motion made by a committee as part of a report? Something else? Dis the Chair recess the meeting to hold the discussion? I think we need more information on what the agenda item was exactly.

Maybe I'm missing something in the scenario but given the OP isn't it entirely possible that the Previous Question to Limit Debate passes and then the motion to Limit Debate passes, then the Previous Question fails for the main motion (probably because there are now limits in place) and so the assembly is left with the main motion still being debated with the limits now in place.

If the position has not been filled, could a current member move to Rescind the acceptance of the resignation?

Point a) Yes and even if there are corrections, once they are all made the Chair (not can but) does declare the minutes approved as read/corrected. I'm confused by the second meeting. How can it be the same? You certainly don't have the same people make the exact same motions with the exact same debate in the second meeting, do you?

There is no motion to adopt the minutes. After all corrections have been made (voted on if necessary) the Chair simply declares that with no further correction, the minutes are approved.

In an election, this is the same as "voting by acclamation" and by Rule 46:40 electing by acclamation is out of order since you specify voting by ballot as the way to vote.

That's what I thought but "class of business" is cross-reference to "order of business" in the index which points to 3:15 to 3:17 and Section 41. Looking at 3:16 it would seem that Rule 50:8 would be like if there was a Committee Oversight Committee to which all reports of special committees are automatically referred to.

Your understanding is incorrect under RONR as write-in votes are allowed.