Atul Kapur

I would say it was not timely once any member has started debating. I would allow a point of order up to the point that a member has been recognized but before they start speaking. Because sounds like this is the same moment as the OP's situation:

The other methods would either need to found in the governing documents, special rules of order, or in the motion referred to in 50:13(e).

No, the methods in 50:13, apply to the appointment of all members of the committee, whether they are members of the organization or not, except that method (d) has extra requirements before the appointments can be considered final.

I have some organizations that authorize the president to appoint or nominate committee members after consultation with the committee chair, but (i) this is usually for standing committees, and (ii) the power to appoint or nominate is still with the president, not the committee chair.

No, you are incorrect for (a) and (c). The body creating the committee has the power to appoint its members. 50:13 lists the way members of a committee can be appointed. Appointment by the committee chair is not one of the methods listed. So if the bylaws are silent, as in (c), the rules in RONR apply. If no one is appointed at the time the committee is established, as in (a), follow the procedure in 13:13-15, paying particular attention to "When a motion to refer to a special committee has been adopted, no business except privileged matters can intervene until selection of the committee members is completed—except that if the chair is to appoint the committee, he can, if he wishes and time permits, state that he will announce the names of its members." (Note that the "chair" here is the chair of the establishing body, not the committee chair.) The body could delegate this to the committee chair, as you mention in (b).

The latter. See Table VI on page t48 of RONR (12th ed.) for the full list.

The law is superior to your bylaws and to RONR. I have no idea what the relevant law says. You should consult a lawyer who is experienced and knowledgeable in this specific area.

The chair skipped the third step as outlined by @Josh Martin and which is the point when it no longer belongs to the maker. However, the chair allowed the group to go to step 4: debate, so, while not stated explicitly, step 3 was effectively completed.

"... If 19 votes are cast, 10 or more is a majority (more than 9½)."?

Here, "procedural" refers to the procedure in meetings, not tax procedure (another way of explaining what @J. J. said). That is properly done through debate, not a ruling that the motion is out of order. Your opinion that this proposed action would put the club's tax status at risk is your opinion - even if it is supported by legal advice.

That is incorrect. You are confusing at least a couple of things, including the difference between stating the question on the motion and putting the question. Please carefully review §4 THE HANDLING OF A MOTION, particularly 4:19 and 4:23.

I disagree. Once debate began the mover does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw the motion. The chair despite not formally reading the motion, obviously has allowed it to be considered.

I'm assuming that you were the chair ("Commodore"?) and that "next officer in line" refers to the vice-chair, rather than your successor. It's not obvious to me that the motion was out of order according to RONR, which says "to the extent that procedural rules applicable to the organization or assembly are prescribed by federal, state, or local law, no main motion is in order that conflicts with such rules." 10:26(1) emphasis added. Tax law appears, here, to be substantive rather than procedural. I'm not saying it's a good idea to adopt a motion to do something contrary to the law, but it is not necessarily out if order (some organizations have deliberately decided to take such action for a variety of reasons). For the same reason, it is not obvious to me that the appeal was out of order. That requires "there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions (24:3(2)(b))" 62:9n3 The assembly did not appear to follow the proper procedure that is used when a chair inappropriately refuses to hear an appeal, which is found in 62:9, but it sounds like that was their intent. In addition to the paragraph cited above, there may be a nautical term for what happened.

Agreeing with @Josh Martin's response immediately above, I will also note that there is nothing in the quoted portion of the bylaws that permits a vote to be conducted by a combination of these methods, particularly any combination that includes one or more of these methods with in-person voting. These are alternatives to in-person voting at a meeting where quorum is present.

Gary, can you provide the RONR reference?

As has been stated by others, the underlined portion is incorrect. This applies to voting (which is where 44:1 & 44:2 are relevant) but has no relevance in determining quorum or for determining the threshold to determine the outcome of a vote (for example, if 19 total votes are cast a majority is any vote > 9.5 and this does not get rounded up to the next whole number).

I see a difference in real examples where, despite strong entreaties, the organization has not explicitly enumerated which rights an individual does and does not have. If a member, they can be presumed to have any rights not explicitly excluded. If a non-member, vice-versa.

That was improper and should have been stopped immediately. "A member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground." RONR (12th ed.) 63:5 'An individual member may not prefer charges, even if that member has proof of an officer’s or member’s wrongdoing. If a member introduces a resolution preferring charges unsupported by an investigating committee’s recommendation, the chair must rule the resolution out of order, informing the member that it would instead be in order to move the appointment of such a committee (by a resolution, as in the example above). A resolution is improper if it implies the truth of specific rumors or contains insinuations unfavorable to an officer or member, even one who is to be accused. It is out of order, for example, for a resolution to begin, “Whereas, It seems probable that the treasurer has engaged in graft, …” At the first mention of the word "graft” in such a case, the chair must instantly call to order the member attempting to move the resolution.' 63:11 While this refers to charges offered by individual members, it applies even more so to correspondence from others. Well, as stated earlier, probably the best thing would have been to do nothing with it. The board or the offended member could use the proper process in your bylaws to raise charges against the member who shared the correspondence. Outside of the organization, the offended member may seek legal advice to see what other action may be warranted.

If your bylaws do not allow voting by mail for bylaws amendments, then you are not allowed to do that unless applicable law gives you that authority. You won't find anything in RONR that allows it. In fact RONR says, "An organization should never adopt a bylaw permitting a question to be decided by a voting procedure in which the votes of persons who attend a meeting are counted together with ballots mailed in by absentees." 45:56 While many governments may have introduced exemptions to allow virtual or mail voting in the last few years, despite any provisions saying otherwise in the bylaws, you will need to confirm whether any such exemption is still in effect in the law that applies to you. No, there is no precedent set that says you can continue to ignore your bylaws because you did so in the past.

Your bylaws appear to have specific rules regarding the filing of charges, "Written notarized Charges containing specific facts signed under oath." If the correspondence doesn't meet these requirements, then I do not see any obligation on the board, or the club, to act on it.

The purpose of a second is to prevent the assembly's time from being wasted on a motion that only one person wishes to be considered. That threshold is met, here, so definitely one of the three can move and another one can second. Specifically, RONR (12th ed.) 4:12 says that the purpose of a second "is to prevent time from being consumed by the assembly’s having to dispose of a motion that only one person wants to see introduced." So it is a pet peeve when it is used in a way that takes up time unnecessarily, such as by making it more cumbersome than necessary.

Definitely not if the vacancy-filler has been notified of their election. 😉 More generally, no, not once the vacancy has been filled.

I don't see in the quotation anything that specifies that the parliamentarian is "a person that the rules determine to be necessary to be allowed to remain in the hall." What rule are you saying that specifies that? In my mind, it would need to be a specific rule of the organization that says the parliamentarian is necessary. So, in response to @Weldon Merritt's questions, I would say that they need explicit language, such as Joshua's suggestion:

Well, the chair is responsible to ensure that debate is germane to the topic. A skilled chair can also use several tactics to assist the assembly to complete its business while still remaining impartial regarding the pending motion. For example, the chair can call for speakers who are of the contrary opinion to the previous speaker, in order to give them preference in recognition. If all speakers are on one side of the question, this is often a signal that the meeting is ready to make a decision.

The closest thing to what you are describing is the requirement that a point of order be made in a timely manner. The deadline is not the end of the meeting, however. The point of order must be made immediately unless there is a continuing breach.