Atul Kapur

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)

It sounds like you are discussing "topics" without a formal motion. These discussions tend to go off in many directions and to be inefficient, and where the same discussion often gets repeated at the next meeting(s). RONR strongly suggests that you start with a motion, which helps to focus the discussion. If the topic is not ready to be expressed in the form of a motion, then a referral to a committee is likely a good idea, where more informal discussion can occur and a recommendation (in the form of a motion or motions) can be brought to the main meeting.

The situation with two different organizations (the Lodge and the trust) is clearly complicated and it sounds like the bylaws could stand to be improved. Do your bylaws state a parliamentary authority at all?

If I understand the implication in Mr. Honemann's quote, then I agree that we are told that the bylaws contain a provision that supercedes 25:2(7).

This is specific to your bylaws. If they are ambiguous or don't give an answer to your particular circumstance (what to do when an ex-officio trustee is elected to another trustee position) then your organization will need to decide what to do. Section 56:68 in RONR (12th ed.) provides some Principles of Interpretation of bylaws. That being said... There is no prohibition in RONR against one person holding more than one trustee position, that is, the one held as the Master and the three-year term that the Master was elected to. This person only has one vote, no matter how many seats they occupy. So it is not at all clear to me that there even was a vacancy to fill. The Master had one year left on the three year term they were elected to in 2018 (as the Junior Warden) and was also elected to a separate three-year term in 2020. Even if the Master "resigned" from the trustee seat with one year remaining, it's not clear that anyone can be filled to replace that "vacancy" because your bylaws apparently say that it is an ex-officio seat.

This appears very similar to the topics discussed in this thread

RONR specifically states that members canNOT be prevented from voting because of a conflict of interest. However I would be shocked if your own policies and procedures or the Act that governs you in your province was silent on conflict of interest. You should look to those documents. Sometimes they state that the chair will rule on whether there is a conflict of interest in what the member should do. So it is possible that your chair followed proper procedure. You request a "professional opinion". That would require all of the governing documents and more details on the facts, more than you could give us on this form.