Atul Kapur

If it's done in one motion, that's called Amend Something Previously Adopted. No. RONR (12th ed.) 10:26(4): "Apart from a motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted (35), no main motion is in order that conflicts with a motion previously adopted at any time and still in force" (With my physician hat on, I have to say that the motion's fine as it is. But this forum is about the How, not the What).

This is completely outside of RONR, which says that "A group that attempts to conduct the deliberative process in writing—such as by postal mail, electronic mail (e-mail), or facsimile transmission (fax)—does not constitute a deliberative assembly." (12th ed.) 1:1 footnote 1 (emphasis added). So your organization will need to develop and adopt any particular rules around this practice, including the details that you ask about.

Let me try to be clearer. I was disagreeing with Mr. Martin's opinion that in the situation that notice was given at meeting 1 and meeting 2 was inquorate: I was citing RONR as saying that notice given at meeting 1 is only valid for the next meeting, that is, meeting 2. The notice given at meeting 1 is not valid for meeting 3. As meeting 2 was inquorate, notice could not validly be given at that meeting for meeting 3. But that does not change the fact that meeting 1 was not the preceding meeting for meeting 3, as Mr. Merritt points out. So the notice given at meeting 1 is not valid for meeting 3; the only way remaining to give valid notice for meeting 3 would be to have it sent with the call of meeting 3 (if a call is sent out). BTW, I agree with J.J. that, notice given at meeting 1 would still be valid at an adjournment of meeting 2.

Limiting the answer to the provision of your bylaws (not Florida law), then the number of people doesn't matter. If one person has 30% of the voting interests, that constitutes a quorum (although I'm sure someone will jump to point out that the bylaw says "persons" in plural so a minimum of two persons is required).

I think I disagree. "Previous notice means that notice of intent to introduce the proposal must be given at the preceding meeting (in which case the notice can be oral), or in the call of the meeting at which it is brought up" RONR (12th ed.) 44:10 (emphasis added) There is similar language in 10:44. Why wouldn't the meeting in month 2 count as the next meeting, even if there was no quorum? And, therefore, the notice should be given again for month 3's meeting.

No, that is not correct. If you want the chair and secretary to stay in those positions until the end of the meeting where elections are held -- that is, you want any exceptions -- then your bylaws should state that. Same for the other officers. Many organizations have such a provision to say that officers' terms end at the adjournment of the meeting where their successors are elected.

RONR (12th ed.) 47:11 explains the process if the chair is absent (or vacant). More specifically, 47:11(3) explains what to do when the chair and vice-chair are both absent.

Based only on the information that is provided by the OP, the committee is authorized to recommend two different things ( avenues and information). That does not give them any authority to use any of the organization's resources to produce the sample video. If they want to do it on a volunteer and using their own resources I don't see that anything is stopping them. This, of course, is subject to change based on extra information, such as budget and instructions, as Mr. Novosielski mentions above,

I agree with Mr. Elsman that this sounds like it would be best done outside of a business meeting, a "retreat" as the OP said. The important difference here is to make certain that no actual business (motions) is done at the retreat.

If it is truly a small variation, could it most easily be done by unanimous consent?

Or their term has ended (or is close to the end, depending on the exact timing of the election). The way you describe it here, you make it sound like it's the individual's choice whether to leave when the term ends. Recent events may have caused confusion on that point, but that's not the way terms work.

No. First, you are missing a word: "If a motion is made and disposed of without being adopted, and is later allowed to come before the assembly after being made again by any member in essentially the same connection, the motion is said to be renewed." The sentence is a definition of renewal. Second, the phrase "in essentially the same connection" does not apply to the member making the motion but to the motion itself. It's describing whether the motion is being moved in "essentially the same connection." The requirement that a motion can only be moved by someone on the prevailing side applies to Reconsider, not to renewal,

Correct You don't even need to do that.

I'm glad you decided to follow my Sage advice.

That sounds like an amendment to the motion. So, unless the executive has the authority to amend board motions, Yes.

As far as RONR is concerned, it doesn't matter at all whether the agenda was adopted. So there is no need to adopt the agenda now. Thinking about it another way: what if the motion, now, to adopt the agenda of the August 2020 meeting is defeated? That doesn't mean that the meeting becomes invalid. So the motion would be useless.

The only thing a parSliamentarian (I spell it parsley-amentarian) can advise on is whether to chop it coarsely or finely. So, I doubt you need co-parSliamentarians.

Most of these issues sound like objections needed to have been raised at the time: - they did not present each bylaw to be changed separately - They also did not provide the old bylaws, just said the members could go look them up You say that Why not? And were there enough members who were prevented from voting that they could have affected the result? Depending on the answers to these questions, the vote on the bylaws change could be declared null and void.

It is too late to correct this error now. A point of order about abstentions would need to have been made in a timely manner, that is, at the time of the error. Give notice, if required, and move the motion at the next meeting.

I believe Guest Puzzling meant that it cannot be correct that the election ended in a tie, making the point that it is still incomplete (I half expected that Mr. H would be the one to say that).

Why do you need a tie-breaker? Under RONR, a majority vote is required to adopt a motion. A majority is more than half. A tie is not a majority so the motion would not be adopted on a tie vote (i.e., a motion fails on a tie). To answer your question, you can name the unnecessary position whatever title you wish. However, the term "ex officio" has another definition and you should avoid the confusion caused by giving the unnecessary position this name.

Trying to answer in another way: Generally, self-nominations are fine (and are sometimes referred to as "volunteering"). The answers above are trying to make explicit some assumptions behind the general rule. 1) Is the person authorized to make a nomination for president? If Yes, go to Question 2. Otherwise No. 2) Is the person eligible to be nominated for president? If Yes, go to Question 3. Otherwise No. 3) Does your organization have any rule forbidding it? If No, the person can nominate himself. If there is such a rule, then No. By the way, nominations do not require a second, unless your organization has a rule that says otherwise.

See RONR (12th ed.) 46:35 and 46:40

Under RONR, minutes are made available to the members of the body that is meeting; that would be the Board of Trustees, not every member of the organization. Before the minutes are approved, they are draft minutes = the secretary's notes. Members do not have a right to see the secretary's notes. If this is a public body, then there are likely other rules or laws that apply.

As stated above, the usual standard to adopt a motion is a majority of those present and voting, as @J. J. put it, "a majority of the votes cast," so the number in attendance is not an issue, as long as it meets the requirement for quorum. Does your organization use a different denominator? If so, then you should review RONR (12th ed.) 44:7 - 44:10 Some require a majority of those present. If your organization does that, pay particular attention to 44:9(a)