Drake Savory

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.

I know of one organization whose bylaws require a parliamentarian at their Annual Meeting so in that case the Parliamentarian cannot be removed, merely replaced.

Rule 50:8 states that a proposed standing committee must be done through a Special Rule of Order if "all business of a certain class is to be automatically referred to the committee". Classes of business are a reference to the agenda or orders of a day so I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around what automatically referring that class of business to a committee would look like. So what would that look like?

Why do I have a feeling the problem will show (yet again) why having the office of "Immediate Past President" is a bad idea.

I'm just curious who would raise such a Point of Order. The old members that waved their hands and presto - the members are replaced? The new "members" that have their position solely based on that parliamentary prestidigitation?

Since the Executive Committee are the 5 elected officers, then are you saying they resigned their offices or just their role on the Executive Committee but yet are still officer. If they resigned as officers, what do your bylaws say about replacing officers. If the second, then I'm not sure that as per your bylaws they can still be officers and claim to not be members of the Executive Committee.

And I think this thread vs mine illustrates the dichotomy in two scenarios 1) Members resign (Request to be Excused From Duty) that the assembly must accept to be effective under RONR. The acceptance was not done (or done at an inquorate meeting) and therefore they are still members and a quorum is still theoretically possible. 2) Members resign. This is done either in a licit manner contained in the bylaws or special rules OR the members tender their resignation, the assembly (including them) vote to accept it, they leave and those left realize, "Oh no! We don't have a quorum." In this case a quorum in impossible unless there is some sort of out, like the members of the parent body can call a special meeting themselves and fill the vacancies. I would argue this thread is a case of the 1st scenario. In July, if the 4 remaining members have to vote to accept the resignations then up until that vote, those that resigned are still members so why is the claim made that they cannot attend the meeting? T

First, was a Point of Order made at the time? Looking at the motion to look for more spots, did it change or undo the motion to place the the park at PR1? I would argue it did not. IF in looking for more locations the assembly finds a different spot to place the park then it would be that motion that Amends Something Previously Adopted and would require a 2/3 vote.

Let's look at another angle. Despite what the Board does in violation of quorum rules, are all of those healed in May if the assembly Ratifies their actions?

Me too. We now have a special rule of order that the Chair can appoint a Secretary pro-tem so that all of the hunting for a p-t can be done before the meeting and not have the need for an election during the meeting.

I based my response on "back in the agenda" meaning the same meeting.

First of all, the nomination meeting held by the Chair is not valid as it violates your bylaws Article VIII. I am really confused on who exactly is supposed to be on the Executive Committee. In the bylaws it is the five elected officers (which is pretty common) and yet you wrote which is only one person and they are not elected by the membership and that would be rare if not unique. Can you clarify the role of this one appointee?