Atul Kapur

No, this is not an "undeclared meeting," whatever that creature is. It is not a meeting at all and has no status; you've told us that your meetings require notice, so without notice it's not a meeting. People who are there can discuss whatever topics they want but they cannot take any action or vote in the name of the HOA. Nothing in RONR requires an HOA officer to be present at a meeting for it to be "official" (your bylaws may hace such a requirement). A meeting needs to have a presiding officer and a secretary. If the HOA officers are not present, then the general meeting can elect pro-tem presiding officer and secretary. They can do it if they want. There's nothing wrong with this informal discussion (including strategizing on how to get the outcome they prefer at an official meeting). Again, it has no official status.

I agree but want to emphasize that the amendment is then a part of the bylaws. It is not a one-off or temporary in any way. If you subsequently want to change it back, you'll have to go through the amendment procedure again.

Teme a La Ira de Dan

"Canadian" is a very easy way of indicating that the person is of high intelligence and that his opinions should be given the utmost respect and thoughtful consideration. He is probably more familiar with organizations where write-in votes are prohibited. Malicious insinuations about the intelligence of others are more effective if the perpetrator knows how to spell properly. It is known as a loonie.

Just to be clear: She is currently holding a position with a three-year term 2018-2021. If she runs and is elected to a position this year, her term will be 2020-2023 (and, as Mr. Martin has noted, there will be a vacancy in her original position, with one year left in that term). I mention this because the OP's quote above sounds like someone thinks that her term would be extended for three years after her current 2018-2021 term ends (ie: 2021-2024).

I would say that, under "Principles of Interpretation" of bylaws, RONR says the exact opposite: "4) If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited." (RONR 11th ed., p. 589, lines 33-34) Parenthetically, I will note that Principle of Interpretation (1) is the reference for the oft-stated concept that "Each society decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws." (p. 588, line 25)

However, I believe that the requirement for the approval of the board would also apply to the removal of a committee member.

Agreeing with Mr. Martin's answer, I draw your attention to the fact that RONR does not refer to " 'material' mistakes". Your quotation refers to errors and that invludes any error. Materiality is only relevant when it comes to omissions.

I concur with Guest Zev and Mr. Brown.

There is nothing in RONR that supports what you told the President. So as far as whether it's according to RONR, it was incorrect. However, you have told us that your bylaws give the answer (vacancy in Treasurer position results in combining it with Secretary). So you don't need to refer to RONR at all in this situation.

I would think that the record of the election's completion (whether at the same meeting or the next) in the minutes would suffice.

Why does it have to be in writing? The referenced portion of RONR states "To notify officers, committee members, and delegates of their election or appointment," I don't read in there that it has to be written. In fact, Mr. Mervosh's quotation states that the absent member can be notified and decline in time for the election to be completed at the same meeting. This strongly implies that it does not have to be in writing, if it is all done quickly enough that the election can be completed at the same meeting.

Are non-members entitled to the titles?

If you are in a situation where the entire membership of a body is changing, then I suggest that the final meeting of the "old" group appoint a minutes approval committee. They can approve the minutes and report to the first meeting of the "new" group that the minutes were approved.

Generally, they shouldn't. This is different if you are using the rules for small boards. Small is defined as less than about a dozen people. And, even without the small board rules, the presiding officer can assume some procedural motions that are necessary to proceed with business.

If you need more of an answer, see §51. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMITTEES starting on p. 503. It explains that, "When a board or committee report has been received and the chair has stated the question on the adoption of the motion, resolution(s), recommendation(s), or report ... the matter is treated as any other main question ..." (RONR 11th ed., p. 509, lines 2-8). As Mr. Martin stated earlier, with any main question It would also be helpful to review §50. COMMITTEES which notes that, "Generally the term committee implies that, within the area of its assigned responsibilities, the committee has less authority to act independently for the society (or other constituting power) than a board is usually understood to have" (p. 490, lines 8-11). And, p. 486, lines 2-4 says that committees of the board, "are genuinely subordinate to the board and must ordinarily report back to it for authority to act."

It was not clear from your original post whether this was being done as a custom or whether there were actually any written rules to back this up. As I said, if you are depending on these rules, then you will have to look to them for advice rather than RONR. We, or at least I, can't comment knowledgeably on just a paraphrase of your rules. Which takes me back to the second option I offered you: go back to the board and get what you need from them. Mr. Martin gave you that citation earlier in this thread. A committee recommendation is just a motion at the board, like any other motion that comes before the board.

There is nothing in RONR that supports these statements. If your organization has some special rules to support this, then you'll need to look to them for advice. Under RONR, the board is the parent body and is free to reject the committee's recommendation without giving any reasons, just like my parents would reject my strong recommendation that I be allowed to stay out until 3 am: "Because we said so." If you were a special committee, then your committee has ceased to exist once it made its final recommendation to the board. If you are a standing committee, you are free to follow the secretary's advice if you wish and believe it would be useful. Or, you could ask the board for instructions. Or, you could follow the lead of your passive-aggressive committee members. I'd recommend options one or two.

Mr. Mervosh has confirmed his answer, after seeing the extra information you provided. I concur with his answer.

I don't have a big problem with the pro tem secretary who took the notes at meeting 1 reading the draft minutes of meeting 1 at the next meeting. As for the signature, the RONR citation I gave earlier states that the secretary signs them when they are submitted. Your bylaws say differently, but the disagreement you are having on this suggests some are operating as if RONR applies. If the draft minutes are distributed ahead of the meeting, the actual reading of the minutes can be skipped. The approval of the minutes still has to happen at the meeting.

It a not clear to me that the above quotation applies to this situation. The quote is about the situation where the parent assembly is considering the committee's report. I'm not certain that the "public meetings" Guest Gary is attending are analogous to the parent assembly of his committee or whether they are external bodies. That doesn't necessarily change the answer, but it might.

Can't help but comment that RONR says a member is allowed to speak twice per subject up to 10 minutes each, per day (as quoted above). Nowhere does it say that a member should do that.

Mr. Katz had commented on the rules of executive session. That does not mean it was in executive session.

Consider moving it as a Substitute of the bylaws article on Officers. Substitute enough of the article to cover the three positions. That is, if the three positions are Sections 4, 6, and 9 of the article, then move a substitute of Sections 4-9. The other changes, from "Financial Secretary" to one of the two remaining officers, can likely be considered to be conforming amendments (RONR 11th ed., pages 273-4).

I don't see anything in the OP to say that this was in executive session. There is a difference between executive meetings (a meeting of the executive committee or executive board) and an executive session, where the proceedings are secret.