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?