Atul Kapur

I'm not certain that this settles the matter. Yes, Each lot owner shall have one vote per lot owned, but the specific provision on amendments does not call for a vote but requires Signatures on an instrument and votes are not the same thing. I suggest you get the advice of a lawyer expert in the relevant law in the relevant jurisdiction (I make no suggestion on whether your attorney is such a person nor on whether you want to get a second opinion).

I would suggest that the first step be to arrange for an educational session / workshop on the rules for the entire committee. This would, ideally, be led by a professional parliamentarian (so that you are actually educated on the rules really say and mean). You do not need to create a committee to do that - just make a motion to have an educational workshop led by a professional parliamentarian (if you wish, you can add details regarding the date and time, location, duration, maximum budget, etc). The Rules Committee would not normally have the power to do any of these things itself; it would only be able to make recommendations to the County Executive Committee, so why not do it directly?

Well, the president and secretary are the two officers required for a meeting, and they are usually the same for the board and the general membership meeting. Once the motion is stated by the chair (or "on the floor") it is owned by the meeting, not the person or group who proposed it. So it does not matter who is the presiding officer when the motion is being debated, because the presiding officer should appear impartial. In fact, if the old/current president cannot be impartial, they should step aside and let someone else chair the debate. Presuming that the old/current board are also members of the assembly, any one of them could have made the motion for their proposals and, that way, could have presented them. But it also sounds like the board members have been taking or been given too much latitude if they are doing presentations and "handling" debate.

Do their bylaws actually require ballot votes? I don't see that in the OP. If this is not actually a requirement, there are more options available to the organization.

This is common in business and corporate meetings. It may just be that the new president is used to that sort of setting and unfamiliar with parliamentary procedure. A copy of RONR - In Brief would be a friendly way to introduce it to him (assuming he's willing to learn and this hasn't already been tried).

The American Institute of Parliamentarians has been doing it's annual membership meetings this way for a few years. One of the toughest, but most important items, is that members in person and those attending electronically should have the same opportunities to seek recognition. At AIP, rather than having two separate queues and trying to combine them, everyone goes through the same process.

Consider whether the HOA can create a fining committee with a membership of nine (or twelve or fifteen or ...) and set quorum at three (unless there is a requirement in a superior document that quorum has to be higher). If you wanted, you could put in further restrictions regarding quorum, such as saying that the chair must be present and one of the three. All members of the committee would need to be sent notice of all meetings, but this would increase the odds of achieving quorum. The chair could also use Doodle or similar scheduling software. This may require an amendment to your bylaws, but it may resolve your situation.

The exact wording of, at least, the first motion would be helpful to determine the duration of its effect.

As stated somewhere elsewhere than RONR, they may very well be different. This is a forum on RONR. What you call RONR's "very bad habit of blurring those lines when it shouldn't" could just as easily be considered a different mindset and approach.

An alternative is to appoint, rather than a person, a committee to review the recording and produce draft minutes to present to the next meeting for approval.

A member does not have the right to make a frivolous motion. The committee does not have the authority to suspend this rule, so a member's motion to do so is frivolous.

I agree with @George Mervosh and @Josh Martin. Speaking of thr collective rights of members of a committee (specifically, the right to suspend the rules) is a red herring. 1:4 applies to members of an assembly. A committee is not an assembly (1:9, 50:1, and 1:24 which states that committees are "subordinate instruments of an assembly,")

Okay. First, nothing you have shared suggests that the president has the power to appoint anyone as sergeant-at-arms. So your organization needs to interpret whether (a) "absence or disability" includes a permanent absence (due to the death of the officer), or (b) the resulting vacancy is something different and the "absence or disability" provision does not apply because it only refers to temporary absences. If (a), then the VP assumes the duties as your bylaws state; if (b) then the vacancy-filling provisions quoted above by @Josh Martin are followed. The organization is the body that is responsible for interpreting the bylaws and resolving the ambiguity, RONR lists Principles of Interpretation to help guide the organization in the process of making that decision, see RONR (12th ed.) 56:68. The first is that "The interpretation should be in accordance with the intention of the society at the time the bylaw was adopted, as far as this can be determined." This is probably the most important one for this situation, and a majority vote decides the question.

The question is whether it is within scope of notice to change the date from March to December. Think of the following question to help answer that question: Would a reasonable member who saw the original motion (with the original date) and decided not to attend the meeting be surprised to see that the motion was adopted with the different date? If that person would not be surprised, then it is likely within scope and the amendment and amended motion can be voted upon at the same meeting — If that person would be surprised, it's likely outside of scope and the amendment should be ruled out of order. Since this is a new event, I believe that the scope of notice is broader than if the motion was trying to move a current event. But my opinion is not determinative. The decision on whether the amendment is within scope is made by the presiding officer. A member who disagrees can appeal from the decision of the chair. If the appeal is seconded then the meeting will vote on whether to uphold or reverse the chair's decision. It takes a majority vote against upholding the decision to reverse it. The presiding officer could also leave the decision to the assembly to decide, by a majority vote.

The easy answer is that the person who passed away is and will be absent from now on. But it appears that someone is trying to draw the distinction that 'absent' is only meant to indicate a temporary absence, as opposed to a 'vacancy' which is permanent, at least until the end of the term. This would be a question of interpretation of your bylaws, which only your membership has the authority to do. But, we can try to help by advising. First, do your bylaws say anything about vacancies of office? Please provide the exact quotes of the bylaws regarding absences or vacancies.

Changing it from March to December could be considered outside the scope of notice. The boundaries of scope of notice are (i) the current situation, and (ii) what is proposed. The usual example is dues or membership fees. Say that the current fee is $100. Your organization distributes a proposal to amend the bylaws to make it $125. At the meeting, any amendment to set it between $100 and $125 can be considered and adapted, and you can vote on the amended proposal at the same meeting. Any amendment to reduce the fee below $100 or increase it above $125 would be ruled out of order and not considered at all. So in your example, I would say it depends on what the current situation is. Is this a proposal to add a new meeting? To change the month of a meeting that is currently happening?

Yes.

I'll give you that (I read "provided" as incorporating the concept of 'also' but won't claim that is the only correct interpretation). If we strike out "provided" and insert in the same place, "as long as", would that work?

Yes, provided that the amendment to the proposal is within the scope of notice of the proposal (as the excerpt you provided requires that members be given notice of the proposals). See RONR 57:10-13, particularly 57:11.

I don't read it that way, but rather that it means that both conditions must be met. Approval requires Condition 1, provided that Condition 2 is also met.

I prefer this wording, with the deletion indicated ("majority" means "more than half" so at least is superfluous). It's clear and unambiguous and the calculations of the two criteria are easy to do. An explanatory page with examples may be helpful, but does not belong in the bylaws themselves. I prefer this language to @Josh Martin's because I foresee people not understanding how to determine which of the two is "greater" than the other, particularly because one is a ratio and the other is an absolute number (I recognize that the ratio produces an absolute number, but I can easily see people getting confused).

This is the perfect role for a committee - a small group given the task of looking into all these details and reporting back to the main body with recommendations, in the form of motions, to the main body. This saves the larger body from spending a lot of time on details. The committee may be given the power to make decisions and put them into effect, rather than just making recommendations.

On a tie vote, the motion should have been announced as lost. It sounds like the chair announced that it was adopted. As no point of order was made, the motion was adopted (as the chair declared) and is in effect. So there is no need for the motion to be made again. As Mr. Elsman said, those who are opposed to the motion can move to Rescind the motion that was adopted.

I wouldn't go so far. It is not a requirement in RONR, which deals with rules applicable generally to al organizations that adopt it as their parliamentary authority. But, within the book itself, is a recognition that each organization will likely have some practices specific to itself, which it provides for through Special Rules of Order and Customs. Recording attendance in the minutes is a common practice. The main suggestion is that, rather than re-inventing the practice with each new secretary, that you decide on what is appropriate (often by following the longstanding custom) and write that down. Then you can adopt them as a special rule and simply follow them from then on. If your organization doesn't want to create a special rule (despite the benefits of doing that) just keep them written for yourself as a guide and pass that along to the next secretary.

If the Officers obstruct proper calls for meetings, try to prevent business from being properly introduced, and ignore properly adopted motions, then you may want to consider disciplinary measures. You may want to try to get the state party involved.