SaintCad

Members
  • Content count

    304
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SaintCad

  1. Also the extension may have been for legal reasons outside of RONR
  2. Why? Do you disagree with me or just manufacturing something to be contrary about? And if I'm wrong and you have a point to make with regards to RONR why not come out and cite the page and lines rather than this mysterious "I am Dan and make ambiguous allusions to rules so that I look like I know more than everyone else." As for the OP it doesn't really matter how things should be done in Danland, What matters is the actual motion that was passed.
  3. I think this is one of those cases where wording is everything. The motion to join is executed as soon as they become a member whereas if the motion were "To be a member/associate/??? of XXX organization." then it is ongoing.
  4. OK second question. Was it a board meeting or an HOA meeting? From the OP's description, I'm not 100% convinced it wasn't an HOA meeting "run" by the board.
  5. Being an HOA, are you sure RONR and not state law would apply?
  6. The way I have seen this dealt with is in the prior notice the proposed amendment is given, declared out of order as it conflicts with the Constitution, and then "officially" declared out of order at the meeting and not brought up for a vote.
  7. I know there is no parliamentary duty to force the member to act, hence the question of if there is an ethical duty.
  8. I don't get what you mean Joshua. If X causes Y to happen, you don't also need Z X = majority vote Y = motion adopted Z = Chair saying the motion is adopted
  9. Still disagree p 49 l 13-14 "which is usually needed only for a vote that has caused a motion to be adopted" Thus the vote adopts the motion - not the announcement. I do not interpret "needed" as "needing to take place in order to adopt the motion".
  10. The motion was adopted and is in effect. I was rereading Section 4 p 47 l 30-35 clearly states that a majority vote adopts a motion*, thus when the chair stated that the vote was 18-2 in favor the motion then it passed notwithstanding p 49-51 which as I read it are recommendations - not requirements - for disposing of the motion. *with certain restrictions
  11. Read p 372-373. Basically you present the proposed agenda where it is adopted by majority vote. If the membership wants to make changes then your agenda can be amended by majority vote. There is no requirement in RONR for you to change the agenda beforehand - "legally" is a whole different issue you should address with an attorney.
  12. I also disagree with Richard. The rules are meant to be followed and if the rules are poorly written then they can be changed. I also don't like the argument that rules should be dispensed with because of convenience. This opens up the potential for abuse based on what a Chair or Board might feel is "convenient".
  13. I'd say according to the bylaws AND RONR she is still an officer,
  14. So Kim in your opinion a Chair can kill a motion that has been seconded by simply not stating it? Also, the OP said that it was interrupted during the discussion and I interpreted that as meaning debate had started.
  15. But Kim notice I said " learned in parliamentary law" and Josh hit on why I said that. Many people don't know parliamentary law especially some of the more technical parts. If I know a rule is being violated I can't assume anyone else knows that same rule and doesn't care so the question is as possibly the only person who knows the rule should I ensure the rule is followed even against my own self-interest?