Please allow me to make what I hope is a useful suggestion. If I am incorrect, I'm sure OPA counsel will let me know. 

So, the DRs state:

G. The Board of Directors of the Association shall have the right to suspend the voting rights (if any) and the right to use of the recreational facilities of the Association of any member (or associate member).

(a) For any period during which any Association charge (including the charges and the fines, if any, assessed under paragraphs 12-D, 13 and 14 of these Restrictions) owed by the member or associate member remains unpaid;

(b) During the period of any continuing violation of the restrictive covenants for the Section and Subdivision, after the existence of the violation shall have been declared by the Board of Directors of the Association;

Past boards always interpreted that as requiring a board motion to hold the lot owner in "continuing violation" in order to suspend voting rights, etc.

What exactly does a vote to "send to legal" mean in terms of impact on the violator? 

I suggest the motion always be to "hold in continuing violation and send to legal."

As an aside, I still believe counsel, or an associate, should be present at every board meeting whenever possible.

Years ago that was the case when Joe Moore was counsel. The pracrtice stopped when Bill Rakow  became OPA president, decided to save the money, and said (to paraphraase) "All this legal stuff is just common sense and we don't need a lawyer at meetings."

Anyone who thinks the law is always comon sense may have a fool for  lawyer.