J. J.

Yes, an appeal or question submitted to the assembly could be reconsidered, within a time frame, but points of order, where there was no appeal are included. There is also the problem reconsidering an appeal in a future session. The principle that " once an assembly has legitimately decided... that a rule (no matter what sort of rule) has or has not been violated in a particular instance, that decision (if not reversed upon reconsideration) is final as to that particular instance, although a different ruling may be made and upheld in any similar instance that may occur in the future," is effectively saying that once the session ends, there can be no longer be a continuing breach. The assembly is, ultimately, in control of its own rules and has the power to correct any mistake that is still occurring.

I have to go with the assembly always being able to correct its mistakes, while the mistakes are continuing. The 10th edition would permit the rescission of "precedent." That is no longer possible. I would question of how a point of order can be reconsidered.

On the first point, most business taken at an inquorate meeting will be invalid, because it violates absentee rights (p. 251, e,). Even if the assembly "erroneously" determines that no breach took place, that does not change the fact there was no quorum and that business was transacted that was taken in violation of absentee rights. The breach continues and can be corrected. Suppose that there was a quorum, but several members were excluded from the meeting improperly; the exclusion was sufficient to have effective the result. The meeting, still excluding the several members, sustains the chair's ruling that the exclusion was proper. Would that prevent the next meeting from correcting this breach? No, because the action is still a violation of the rules protecting absentees. In regard to the motion to Fix a Time to Adjourn, that motion may be adopted in the absence of a quorum.

Yes, I didn't hit the "e" hard enough.

A unanimous vote simply means that there is no opposition voiced on the motion, e.g. unanimous consent. A vote of on in favor, none against and 5,000 abstentions is a unanimous vote. Except for unanimous consent, RONR does not really discuss or require unanimous votes. You bylaws may define them, if they require them for something.

Maybe, but that is a legal question.

If she is an officer, see Chapter XX.

If there no absentees, it could be done without notice. That possibility is very unlikely.

It would depend on the rule.

It is a transference of votes, primarily. In many cases, however, a member grants his proxy and then does not attend the meeting. It can violate the "one-member-one-vote" rule, but also be a form of absentee voting.

Yes, a polling time and place can be set by motion. The result, unless your bylaws say otherwise, must be announced a meeting of the HOA; it may be necessary to hold another special meeting. The member who didn't vote at the meeting because he thought that he had given a proxy (but didn't) may vote at any time that the polls are open.

To me, the key is the term "eligible confessing members." That sets a parameter. There is a presumably finite group of these members, and these members are not the same as "eligible confessing members present and voting at a meeting" (or "votes cast") or the "eligible confessing members present at a meeting." I have to conclude that "eligible confessing members" means just that, all eligible confessing members. In looking at the change, the body specifically removed the term "votes cast." To use the standard language, the body only needed to strike one word, "majority." This, to me, indicates that the body did not wish to base its decision on an amendment to the bylaws on the number of "votes cast." I will concede that the group that adopted the bylaw may have made not understood the implication of adopting this; that does not change the plain wording of the amended text. Even looking at the history of this adoption, the assembly went out of the way to abolish the idea of basing this on just a percentage of the eligible confessing members voting or attending a meeting.

I do not see a problem either. Life membership generally entails a waiving of further dues and requires the person to be a member. Anyone reaching an age of NN that is not a member would not become one upon that birthday. Even if there were other qualifications, i.e. the member lives in a specific region, in a particular profession, or has attended a certain school, not everybody in that subgroup would necessarily be a member.

I agree. One advantage to scheduling it may be to explain the process to the assembly in preparation.

While I agree, how certain is "certain?" A motion, "That we postpone this action until our attorney arrives," would seem to be in order, if the attorney is expected to be at that meeting. What if he got sick, or his wife was having a baby and he wanted to be there, he was delayed in traffic, or just forgot about the meeting?

I will also agree with this interpretation. The line is "a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the eligible Confessing Members." It refers to the members in toto, not a subset of those people that show up at a meeting or those who vote.

While I would not use the word "fundamental," I agree. The only exceptions might be if the bylaws are silent on membership or if they would permit such a rule to be adopted at a lower level, i.e. a special rule. I have seen the second one occur.

I also agree. When a society adopts a parliamentary authority, it is permitted to do things authorized by that authority. RONR is clear that, even after it is adopted by society, the society may adopt procedural rules that will supersede RONR, in most cases. On one point, however, I disagree. A society has an inherent right to adopt rules, unless that is limited by the bylaws or some higher level rule. If the society had no parliamentary authority, it could adopt special rules of order. RONR is clear that an entire parliamentary authority may be adopted, even if there is no authorization in the bylaws to do so (p. 15, ll. 28-32). A society does not need authorization in RONR nor its bylaws to exercise its rule-making ability.

It is patterned on a body of 435 members using it, the USA House.

That is exactly what I was referring to in my answer.

Under the first one, there is a dual ability to call a special meeting. The president can, all by himself, call a special meeting. There is no reason for the people on the other side of the "and/or" to be granted that authority, unless it was to grant "other board members" independent authority to call a special meeting. The "or" is the key part, even when added to the "and." In this context special meetings by the president or by "other board members." The could get together and call the meeting, but the power to call resides in both those "other board members" and the president. RONR is replete with examples of what to do when the presiding officer fails to do some duty connected to a meeting (pp. 651-2). Likewise, even if a president is in attendance, but refuses to call a meeting to order, some other member can do so (p. 453, ll.3-7). The president is not granted a veto over the holding of meetings in RONR. If the presiding officer does infringe upon the rights of these "other board members," they may use take similar action. Om the second point, defining the "other board members," in full, leads to ambiguity as to who these people are. It can be said that there are at least two and they are board members; beyond that, there is ambiguity. What is not ambiguous is that these "other board members" have the ability to call a special meeting. It will be up to the society to interpret the bylaws as to who these folks are. They can, however, do that, with relatively little effort.

No. Informal Discussion would apply to a pending motion.

Yes, a rule could be adopted to permit it. I would recommend against adopting such a rule; at some point, you will probably be sending something inaccurate out to the members.

1. To be elected a candidate would the director position would need not only to be within the top 3 people receiving votes, but have to ghave more than half the ballots, with at least one vote on it, cast. It is unlikely that the write-in candidate had sufficient votes to be elected, i.e. more than half of the votes cast. 2. The ballot said, "List the candidates you are voting for with their respective positions in your reply." This would easily include write-in votes. 3. You have an incomplete election for the third position. If your group meets at least as often a quarterly, you should attempt to complete the election.

It may not be possible to wait for a regular meeting. There can be situations where they wish to remove the person before more damage can be done (from their viewpoint). It would depend on the exact wording of the bylaws. I would note that failure to call a meeting when required could be a subject of disciplinary action in itself. Someone could test this by raising a point of order, either at that meeting or a subsequent one. The person testing it by raising a point of order, could actually believe that the meeting was legitimately called but could want to establish a precedent (for what it is worth).