SaintCad

One the question is stated, the motion belongs to the assembly and the maker of the motion does not have veto power over the amendment.

I think that is immaterial. If the bylaws only provide for termination of membership for non-payment and then we go to RONR, I believe the case as stated by the OP did not follow Chapter XX.

If it is a continuing breach, any member can raise a Point of Order. Looking at p 241 I would say it is as a main motion in conflict with the bylaws. Since it will probably be ruled not well-taken be ready to Appeal. If your Point is ignored, raise it to the Assembly. If the will of the assembly is to take the Point well-taken and the board refuses to follow through start discussing discipline (Chapter XX). ETA: I started typing before Joshua's reply came up.

Side note: You may want to read up on Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. It covers some of the mathematics associated with voting issues as you describe.

In such a case, the member can address the Point and Appeal directly to the assembly. p 650-651

Go back in time and make a timely Point of Order. Since it is not a continuing breach it would be too late now to correct it using that method. So now if you want those amendments put back it, it would have to be revoted on via Amend Something Previously Adopted. As a note, the people that would vote on that amendment would be those present when the motion is made, not those who voted on it originally.

My thought was, if amendments can only go through the Bylaw Committee and that committee is free to disregard any proposed amendment that they in effect can veto any and all proposed Bylaw changes. I think Richard was pointing out that a member should be able to get an amendment proposed to the membership even if the committee wants to block it.

I certainly hope so.

And remember even if the President shouldn't vote, if they are a member of the assembly they always have the right to vote.

Since those situations had already been dealt with in the thread, I was imagining the all-too frequent occurrence when the Chair doesn't like the way the meeting is going so they declare the meeting is adjourned and walk out.

Nope. And if he leave the members elect a Chair pro tem.

Didn't we handle this same question a little while back and we were split with some (me included) saying it was when the vote was announced and other saying it was when the Chair announced the motion adopted? IIRC that question was if there were enough votes to pass but no announcement then was the motion adopted.

Greg, wouldn't it be at least half of the body wishing to stay in executive session be sufficient since it takes a majority to move out of executive session? This is an honest question since RONR seems silent on how a body goes beck into an open session.

I move that the thread be locked and Gary & Logan continue their courting via PM.

I am completely lost in this lovefest between Logan and Gary? Can someone translate what happened?

If a vote requires a majority or percentage of all members, then abstaining is effectively a "no" vote without voting no.

I would ask the OP if you are sure it is 2/3 of those present or 2/3 of those voting.

If they are a member, yes.

So disregard that I answered her question (can a member call for a vote because you know one of the people "Called the Question") and told her what the actual motion was so she can look it up? Disregard that she should bring a copy of the book to the meeting to use as a reference? Disregard that when one of the bulldozers claim a power as per RONR (which we can safely assume is a power that doesn't really exist) that the Chair should ask them to specify what rule gives them the power? Why should my entire answer be thrown out? No offense but your answer is hey go buy a book that doesn't answer your specific question on discipline procedure.

It seems you answered all of your questions right there. Chief resigns => Deputy Chief acts as Chief until new Chief is approved. Members elect a new chief => Goes to BOD for approval. If BOD does not approve, members elect chief again => If BOD does not approve, later rinse repeat until an elected chief is approved, all the while the Acting Chief remains in place until new Chief is approved.

A member cannot call for a vote. They can make a motion called Previous Question and upon 2/3 vote THEN the assembly would vote on the original motion. Second, I suggest you read up on RONR for making Points of Order, the rules of debate and calling members to order (p 645-646). Also nothing is as powerful as bringing a copy of RONR with you because I will guaranty they will claim that they have the power to do what they want. They should be challenged by the Chair to point out in the book where they get this power. It need not be confrontational, merely "What page in the book are you referring to." They can certainly make the same motion again next meeting (note that I did not say that such a motion is in order). So now is the big question for you. Is the method for removing an officer in the bylaws? I'm also confused, were the accused not allowed to vote? Under whose authority? EVERY member has a right to vote.

If nominations are reopened, does everyone's debate counter automatically reset to zero? (e.g. I spoke once for Candidate A. Am I now considered to have debated zero times in the new nomination?) Would this apply even if no new people are nominated?

Absolutely except the Board already voted years ago on the motion. It would not require a vote now. Think of it this way: in 2017 your Board votes and passes the motion "The Secretary shall send out New Year's cards in January of every year." January 2018 rolls around. Would the Board need to vote again to send out cards? In 2019? In 2020? No, the cards are to be sent out every year until the motion is rescinded or amended. It is the same thing here. The Board voted that when X occurs, then member Y can do Z. That has already been voted on and passed.

Would it be debate or a Point of Information?

UNLESS the three year terms are mandated by law for HOAs and that was what the legal opinion was. Since this would automatically nullify that provision in the bylaws there would be no record of changing the bylaws. That's my best guess.