SaintCad

Yep this sounds like more of a ballot.

This is tricky unless in a small committee. Assuming the Chair is a member of the the organization then they have all of the rights including making motions and voting. So should they? No. But are they ALLOWED to? Yes.

I am not 100% convinced that the set up you describe means that the standing rules are not to adopted by the convention* but ultimately it is up to the body to interpret their bylaws. If the bylaws are silent on suspending the rules then RONR would give the body the authority to suspend the rules by majority vote. *It seems this could turn into a whole other discussion.

And double check if passage actually needs 2/3 of the whole body including absences or simply 2/3 of those present.

I got this one because I studied how to do this for an AM I'm going to next year. First thing is that the standing rules are not in effect until adopted by the assembly so you're not suspending existing rules. Read p 618 to see that the rules do not carry over from one convention to the next but just know that the entire premise you raise in your OP needs to be thrown out. If you believe the rule should not exist then when the standing rules come up for adoption, you would call for a Division which is your right as a member and does not need to be seconded or approved by the assembly or Chair. The form can be as simple as being recognized and saying, "I call for a separate vote on proposed rule #8". See p 619 l 17-19. The rest of the rules are then voted on with a 2/3 vote needed to adopt them. Then the rule you wanted divided comes up and can be debated and amended and may require a 2/3 vote or a majority vote (see p 620). If you are talking about suspending an adopted rule - meaning one adopted by the assembly at the convention - then it must be for a specific purpose like "I move to suspend the rules to allow Mr. Ceepeay to give a presentation on organizational fundraising." then you only need a majority vote of the assembly.p 620 l 31 to p 621 l 2.

Then RONR does not apply and your organization would have to interpret its own bylaws.

Since the rule on appointing the Election Liason/Agent was done via motion, it can be changed as Amending Something Previously Adopted. Did the latest motion (to replace the Exec Sec) pass with 2/3 vote? If so they're replaced. As for declining, it would be a Request to be Excused from Duty and yes the secretary can do that as long as it is approved by the BOD (majority vote). On a pedantic note, if the duty were in the bylaws I think it would need a 2/3 vote.

If not done informally, then it seems that meeting times were set via a motion and as such can be amended with 2/3 vote - but done at a meeting. I think they bylaw as given gives the President or BOD the power to add meetings but not to cancel meetings. Perhaps the best solution is to have that regular meeting in a pro forma session (doesn't even have to be a quorum) and set up an adjourned meeting. Of course a majority of the members would have to agree.

I'm going to cover this in reverse order. If the balloting was closed (implied by the votes being counted), they can be reopened only by a majority vote.p 415 l 18-19. Did the Chair close the balloting or was it closed by 2/3 vote? However you would need to raise a timely Point of Order. BUT The fact that there were more ballots than votes violates the one person = one vote principal (p 407 top of the page). Since this is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law it constitutes a continuing breach (p 251(d)) and thus you can raise a Point of Order even now that the election is invalid and there needs to be a revote.

First step would be to educate the members on RONR so they know what they can do. What are your board rules on a quorum? Could you conceivably run a meeting with only the 5 members that are properly on the Board? Would it be improper to send a message to the membership pointing out the violations and at the next AM prepare them to raise Points of Order galore (with Appeal naturally)?

Or it could be that they were in organizations that (mis)used RONR, you know like voting immediately on calling the question, arbitrary adjournments when the Chair gets upset, etc. You wouldn't believe how many people blame RONR when organizations don't use it properly.

Yes they can but I believe it would up to the chair to decide if it was a "Yes" vote or an abstension, subject to appeal.

Also the extension may have been for legal reasons outside of RONR

Why? Do you disagree with me or just manufacturing something to be contrary about? And if I'm wrong and you have a point to make with regards to RONR why not come out and cite the page and lines rather than this mysterious "I am Dan and make ambiguous allusions to rules so that I look like I know more than everyone else." As for the OP it doesn't really matter how things should be done in Danland, What matters is the actual motion that was passed.

I think this is one of those cases where wording is everything. The motion to join is executed as soon as they become a member whereas if the motion were "To be a member/associate/??? of XXX organization." then it is ongoing.

OK second question. Was it a board meeting or an HOA meeting? From the OP's description, I'm not 100% convinced it wasn't an HOA meeting "run" by the board.

Being an HOA, are you sure RONR and not state law would apply?

The way I have seen this dealt with is in the prior notice the proposed amendment is given, declared out of order as it conflicts with the Constitution, and then "officially" declared out of order at the meeting and not brought up for a vote.

I know there is no parliamentary duty to force the member to act, hence the question of if there is an ethical duty.

I don't get what you mean Joshua. If X causes Y to happen, you don't also need Z X = majority vote Y = motion adopted Z = Chair saying the motion is adopted

Still disagree p 49 l 13-14 "which is usually needed only for a vote that has caused a motion to be adopted" Thus the vote adopts the motion - not the announcement. I do not interpret "needed" as "needing to take place in order to adopt the motion".

The motion was adopted and is in effect. I was rereading Section 4 p 47 l 30-35 clearly states that a majority vote adopts a motion*, thus when the chair stated that the vote was 18-2 in favor the motion then it passed notwithstanding p 49-51 which as I read it are recommendations - not requirements - for disposing of the motion. *with certain restrictions

Read p 372-373. Basically you present the proposed agenda where it is adopted by majority vote. If the membership wants to make changes then your agenda can be amended by majority vote. There is no requirement in RONR for you to change the agenda beforehand - "legally" is a whole different issue you should address with an attorney.

I also disagree with Richard. The rules are meant to be followed and if the rules are poorly written then they can be changed. I also don't like the argument that rules should be dispensed with because of convenience. This opens up the potential for abuse based on what a Chair or Board might feel is "convenient".

I'd say according to the bylaws AND RONR she is still an officer,