Atul Kapur

In case it helps, another P.A. (AIP Standard Code) defines a "majority of the quorum" as "a majority of those present and voting, assuming a quorum is present, with the further stipulation that the affirmative vote must include a majority of the number required for a quorum." If you replace majority with ¾, you get the same result as your option #4.

I don't know about strange. Sloppy, yes, but unfortunately not as rare as you'd hope. So, from here you can raise a point of order that the added sentence was never properly adopted and should be struck out. And you could appeal the ruling if it goes against you. If that doesn't work, then you can move to amend the bylaws (following requirements for notice, etc).

That one. Your bylaws, you tell us, specify five individuals on the board. What authority allows anyone (committee, board, etc) to ignore the bylaws? Edited to add: see Mr. Novosielski's reply, above, with more details about how to conduct your elections.

Motions can be referred to a committee. The purpose is usually to have the committee review the motion in depth and make recommendations to the assembly.

The first rule of Reconsider and Enter Club is ... 😀

Actually, you're second on that point, Gary Josh 😉

You do not, normally adopt or approve committee reports. The committee makes its report, members may have questions for the reporting member (through a Request for Information), then you thank the reporting member and move to the next item of business. And, for certainty, there is no motion to "receive" the report. If the committee has recommendations in its report, then they should be made as motions, which are processed as any other motion (except that a second is not required).

These are questions, with some interesting details, that you need to ask a lawyer who has experience with the HOA laws in your jurisdiction.

That the bylaws interpret the Articles of Incorporation as being specific to election by the membership, rather than including appointment by the board to fill a vacancy. I'm not saying that I like this interpretation, but it is not unreasonable. In the end, the organization, itself, is the body that needs to decide if this bylaw provision is in conflict with the Articles. I would also advise that they consult an attorney experienced in the relevant law.

Both. The Articles of Incorporation take precedence over the bylaws. RONR (12th ed.) 2:7 and 2:5 The two provisions can be read together in a way that doesn't create a conflict so that should be the way they're read. 56:68(2)

Doesn't sound like it would, no. You do have proper business meetings as well, I hope.

Between us non-lawyers, what do you make of this excerpt from, I presume, statute: I may have missed it in the volume of posts, but I do not see that "the items on the agenda" were provided.

I'm also not an attorney, but I have reviewed enough bylaws to suggest that you are assuming, incorrectly, that these two sections are adjacent. More likely, the first snippet ("Quorum") is in the section about meetings of the association (that is, meetings of the members) and states the quorum for those meetings. The second snippet ("Quorum and Vote") appears to be taken from the section on meetings of he board and only states the quorum for board meetings and has nothing to do with quorum at membership meetings. I have seen quorum requirements for membership meetings that do require the presence of a certain number of officers and/or directors, but in those cases the requirements are in the same section, not divided as here (eg: "Quorum is 20% of the membership including at least one Officer.")

It won't be able to reverse any work that has been done, but would stop further work (yes, this may seem self-evident, but the question has been asked previously).

Sure, by amending the provisions of the governing documents that refer to that office, while ensuring that any legal requirements are still satisfied.

No. We are told that the bylaws override that objection.

It sounds like "quorum" means the number of members who cast a vote in the online election.

If only there was a Professor of Mathematics with an interest in parliamentary procedure, RONR, and this forum who could help.

See the fourth post of this thread which considers this as an election for 50 delegate positions as well as a pre-selection of those who would fill vacancies that may occur in the delegation. Rather than fill each vacancy as it occurs, they are creating a ranked list of alternates who will fill vacancies in the 50-person delegation. With this frame, it is definitely reasonable to limit voters to up to 50 choices. For completeness in this post, a method of breaking ties is strongly recommended, although limiting votes to 50 will, intuitively, lead to fewer ties.

The answer to this question will be found in the association's governing documents. There is nothing in RONR that would prohibit it. The qualifications for membership on the committee should be listed in your documents, along with any restrictions. If any owner is eligible to beq elected/selected to the committee, and there is no restriction written on a director being a member of the committee, then I would say the person could serve both roles.

No, because the bolded part of your question conflicts with the bolded part of RONR (12th ed.) 59:27 The answer to 1 is the same, as it is just a particular example of Q2. As to your preamble about establishing a standing committee by special order, as it would have application outside of the convention, it could not properly be adopted as part of the convention standing rules.

As a majority is not required to elect here, the top 50 vote getters would be elected delegates and the 51st-100th vote getters would be the alternates. My quick thought was that limiting voters to 50 choices would result in fewer ties, but as @Josh Martin says, there are likely to be many under either scenario - fewer in the up-to-50 group, still many. With all the tying-on and tying-off, ties would be inevitable. Breath holding?

I think it would also be reasonable to have each member vote for up to 50 individuals, as there are significant differences between delegates and alternates, so they could be considered not equivalent (in that mindset, you're just electing 50 delegates and a ranked list of backups).

I don't see a reason why it would not be. Do you have a particular scenario or specific question?

In other words, are convention standing rules "subsidiary, incidental, or other motions that may arise in connection with the transaction of such business or the conduct of the meeting"? RONR (12th ed.) 9:15 I lean to "Yes" as they appear to be "other motions that may arise in connection with ... the conduct of the meeting."