Transpower

It appears to me that this rule is a "rule of order" and so it can indeed be suspended by a 2/3 vote. RONR (11th ed.), p. 17, ll. 19-21.

A 2/3 vote is a standing vote--not a show of hands.

The motion could contain specific action items to be accomplished by specific dates. The committee assigned to carry out the motion should give periodic progress reports to the board.

You could store digitized minutes at Dropbox. Then if someone requests to see a particular one, you could send them the Dropbox link.

Discussion without a motion on the floor is considered bad practice. RONR (11th ed.), p. 34, ll. 7-9: "Under parliamentary procedure, strictly speaking, discussion of any subject is permitted only with reference to a pending motion." (A motion is a proposal that the assembly take a certain action.)

Leaving the "not" out is obviously a typo. It can easily be corrected by unanimous consent.

As I've mentioned several times on this forum, a chair may "assume" a motion, particularly if it's the blatantly obvious thing to do. For example, if there is clearly no further business, he may assume unanimous consent, "With no further business, and without objection....the meeting is adjourned."

I'm surmising that "poa" means "president of the association." RONR (11th ed.), p. 653, ll. 26-33: "If the bylaws provide that officers shall serve 'for ___ years or until their successors are elected,' the officer in question can be removed from office by adoption of a motion to do. The vote required for adoption of such a motion is (1) a two-thirds vote, (b) a majority vote when previous notice...has been given, or (c) a vote of a majority of the entire membership..." update: OK, I suppose it's more likely that "poa" means property owners assocation...

And, if you get tired of all this: "If an assembly wishes to adjourn when an election is incomplete, an adjourned meeting should be provided for." RONR (11th ed.), p. 444, ll. 10-12.

RONR frowns on absentee voting; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 423. Absentee voting would continue after the first round, with no change. Also, unless you have a special rule of order to the contrary, "When repeated balloting for an office is necessary, individuals are never removed candidacy on the next ballot unless they voluntarily withdwaw--which they are not obligated to do." (RONR (11th ed.), p. 441, ll. 5-8; footnote.

Providing information is part of advocating for or against a motion. So the "Point of Information" provided by the member should be counted as 1 of his or her two speeches; of course the assembly may have special rules.

This is a continuing bylaw violation, not a rule of order violation. Thus I agree with Mr. Katz:

Only a president-elect would assume the office of president a year later. RONR (11th ed.), p. 457.

Providing agendas to members (of an assembly or board) ahead of the meeting is good practice, in my opinion, but it certainly is not required.

She could "Raise a Question of Personal Privilege."

Is this an emergency situation???

Many organizations have anonymous suggestion boxes. I think it would be unwarranted for the board to demand to know who the sender is. The Corresponding Secretary could read the letter at a board meeting, and the board could take (or not take) an action in regard to it.

If the board hired the individual, they can fire the individual. If the assembly hired the individual, then they can fire the individual. The appointing authority is the dismissing authority.

A committee should be appointed to construct the minutes of the meeting as best as possible.

It only takes a majority to adopt bylaws (assuming these are the first and not amendments to existing bylaws).

According to RONR (11th ed.), p. 250, ll. 30-31, p. 251, ll.1-2: "Points of order regarding the conduct of a vote must be raised immediately following the announcement of the voting result (see pp. 408-409)." It would therefore seem that a re-vote cannot be entertained. However, could this procedural mistake be considered a "continuing breach"? I'm not sure, but I'm dubious about it.

RONR (11th ed.), p. 307, ll.5-12: "If the bylaws or governing instrument contains no provision relating to amendment, a motion to rescind or amend applied to a constitution or to bylaws is subject to the same voting requirement as to rescind or amend special rules of order--that is, it requires (a) previous notice as described above and a two-thirds vote or (b) a vote of a majority of the entire membership."

RONR (11th ed.), p. 356, ll. 5-8: "If an officer, in reporting, makes a recommendation, he should not himself move its implementation, but such a motion can be made by another member as soon as the officer has concluded his report."

1. "Appeal from a decision" is used in the US House rules: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-115/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-115-4.htm 2. The motion to close debate is the current question; the previous question or motion is just that! 3. According to Garner's Modern English Usage, p. 717, "Although the traditional pronunciation of precedence was /pri-seed-ants/, today the standard pronunciation in all the major varieties of World English is /pres-i-dants/." So RONR is simply using the traditional pronunciation.

Debating by alternating pro and con speakers is a good idea, but it doesn't end if there are no more pro speakers or no more con speakers; debate ends as H. H. H. says above.