SaintCad

I would disagree with your assessment that the second part relates SOLELY to protect absentees. Suppose the president calls a special meeting so the body can select what candidate to endorse for Governor. I would need time to study the candidates not only to support the one I think should be endorsed but to come up with counter-arguments for other candidates that might be supported by other members.

The election procedure is specified in the bylaws as being specified in the standing rules. In this case that's a plus since voting on bylaw changes is cumbersome.

An organization has in their bylaws that the parliamentary authority is Robert's Rules of Order, Revised. It is clear that everyone assumes this means the latest version of Robert's Rules but is it the case that the controlling authority is actually Robert's Rules of Order, 6th ed. (I think that was the last "Revised" edition)? As a followup, the bylaws were written before 1970*, so do the bylaws automatically update to RONR? *That's when the name was change to "Newly Revised", right?

Is is appropriate for the Chair, recognizing that the motion is in conflict, to state the question as a motion to Amend or is it ruled out of order and up to the member to restate the motion in the appropriate form?

A large organization I belong to had a tie in the election for a position. This scenario was never addressed in the standing rules and re-balloting under Robert's Rules while not impossible would be difficult to do. IF the election rules on incomplete elections were to be changed before the re-balloting would that affect the way the incomplete election is conducted?

If a woman I assume this extends to "Ms Chairwoman"?

A member that chooses to be absent do not have their "right to debate" taken away or as you put it "not allow[ed]". They willingly give up that right by not attending.

I think there are other issues. "Special meetings may be conducted via email as long as the topic consists SOLELY of A spending issue." So even if this is solely a spending issue then who has authority to call the special meeting? The President? A petition of a majority of the members? The group of 3? Secondly, the OP mentions the meeting was tabled and depending on the motion it may have been erroneously tabled or merely postponed. If it were postponed until the next regular meeting, would it be in order to take up the motion at a special meeting for any reason such as amendment or debate or vote?

What are these "guidelines" of which you speak? Bylaws? Standing rules? Custom? Some manual an old-time member wrote?

So being pedantic, wouldn't the motion to suspend the rules only require a majority of those present, not a 2/3 vote?

But according to their bylaws, wouldn't THAT vote only require a majority vote.

As far as RONR is concerned, any matter can be discuseed at a special meeting as long as it does does not violate the bylaws. The trick is that the special meeting is limited to discussion of those items in the notice of the meeting.

Are you a member of the executive committee? If so you could make a motion there and see what happens.

The only parliamentary issue is they cannot ban you from HOA meetings if you are a member unless you have been disciplined or the bylaws give them that power.

So in essence a Nominating Committee could force a member to be a nominee by nominating someone and the nominee not able to withdraw their nomination? If this is true, then how can someone withdraw as referenced to in RONR. Would they need to have a motion to withdraw them from the nomination list if the committee refuses to take them off?

That's what I meant. SOrry for being confusing myself add in "before the assembly" to the end of my post. Bottom line is that there cannot be 2 amendments of the first degree unresolved simultaneously.

Technically this is incorrect. You cannot have 2 amendments to the main motion. You may have have 1 amendment to the main motion and 1 (secondary) amendment to the amendment.

I think the only question would be how to phrase it as a main motion to force the letter out and then another motion to take (whatever) action to follow up on it. Seems pretty cut and dried.

Do you mean in terms of seniority

I would say that with the lack of nomination to have a vote by ballot and whoever wins, wins.

Joshua, I have noticed the same thing and coincidently putting together a training for a group for which I have been parliamentarian. Anyone who has a chance to compare a meeting without "formalism" with one that has it would never again go back to the anarchy of a meeting without parliamentary law.

Whisper the motion.

Can it be amended or qualified to be "I move to go into executive session to discuss the surprise party for Billy." and thus automatically resume the regular session once that topic is disposed of?

Unbelievably the evolution of language does not depend on you for approval. So if you want to be pedantic about people's grammar you might want to make sure they are actually incorrect first. And I mean actually incorrect, not a "Disagree with Dan's curmudgeon viewpoint = incorrect" error. Or if you make an honest error (like I did) man up and admit it instead of doubling down on the "I'm Dan therefore I'm correct" mantra you spew when you get called out on your mistake. You may think that because you're old you have somehow earned the right to be an ass. You are wrong on that too.

Yes I made an error after a 16 hour day, it is a possessive determiner. And of course you ignored the definition I quoted that shows that "their" is proper for a singular person if their sex is not know. Can't admit you're wrong? How shocking. from dictionary.com's definition - used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent. Singular means one.