Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

J. J.

Members
  • Posts

    5,499
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by J. J.

  1. Offering no disagreement, I would go a bit further and would question the propriety of foisting a parliamentarian upon an unwilling chair. The only possible exception would be if a position of "parliamentarian," with specific duties and powers, were created in the rules or bylaws. In some groups, the "Parliamentarian" is an elected officer and defined as such in the bylaws. That changes the definition pf a parliamentarian in RONR, p. 465 ff. Recently, I said that I regard myself as a "political appointee," to the extent that I am attached to the presiding officer and that when the presiding officer leaves office, I leave with him. I am often reappointed by the next presiding officer, but it his or her choice.
  2. There are a few things that were incorporated into RONR from Parliamentary Law(PL). I was actually asked about the origin of one by a client about a month ago.
  3. In some of these things, I'm more worried about bad faith than an honest mistake.
  4. It is covered in Robert's 1923 work Parliamentary Law (p. 458). That was considered to be "in complete harmony" with the 4th edition.
  5. This is basically a "thought experiment," where certain variables that could exist in real life are eliminated. In real life, you often do not have a situation where those variables are absolute. The can be questions on what conditions are needed to establish a quorum, on if that conditions that establish that quorum were actually met, and if there is "clear and convincing" evidence. In some cases, it becomes an evidentiary matter as to if there is "clear and convincing proof" that there was no quorum. In many real life cases, the absence of "clear and convincing proof" of the lack of a quorum would be sufficient to rule a point of order not well taken. In this case, when we discuss this, we set artificial conditions regarding those variables. There is a quorum defined in the bylaws, and there can be no reasonable opinion different to what that bylaw says constitute a quorum. The assembly, at this meeting, did not have this quorum, as a matter of absolute certainty. At the next meeting, there was absolute proof that the prior meeting did not have a quorum. In a thought experiment, eliminating those variables allows us to focus on just one part of a complex question, and the theory behind it.
  6. Then there would be no such thing as breach of a continuing nature. It would be ended by, at worst, a point of order. In this case, the point of order, and possibly an appeal, has been made during an inquorate meeting. Has the assembly "legitimately decided" the issue? Assume that the assembly could decide the issue, but incorrectly decided it and it was one of those issues on p. 251 that would create a breach of a continuing nature. There would be nothing to prevent them fixing it at the next session. At the inquorate session a point of order is raised regarding the lack of quorum and found not well taken; the decision of the chair was sustained. At the next session, the point of order is raised that the last session lacked a quorum (and it is evident); the chair rules that the question had been decided. The chair's decisions that the question has been decided is appealed and overruled. The appeal is not subjected to reconsideration at that meeting. The chair then rules that yes, there was no quorum at the previous meeting and the business conducted at that meeting is void. His decision is appealed and this time sustained; there is no reconsideration of that motion either. That meeting adjourns. In that case, the business that has been conducted at the inquorate meeting is found to be void due to a lack of a quorum.
  7. Yes, an appeal or question submitted to the assembly could be reconsidered, within a time frame, but points of order, where there was no appeal are included. There is also the problem reconsidering an appeal in a future session. The principle that " once an assembly has legitimately decided... that a rule (no matter what sort of rule) has or has not been violated in a particular instance, that decision (if not reversed upon reconsideration) is final as to that particular instance, although a different ruling may be made and upheld in any similar instance that may occur in the future," is effectively saying that once the session ends, there can be no longer be a continuing breach. The assembly is, ultimately, in control of its own rules and has the power to correct any mistake that is still occurring.
  8. I have to go with the assembly always being able to correct its mistakes, while the mistakes are continuing. The 10th edition would permit the rescission of "precedent." That is no longer possible. I would question of how a point of order can be reconsidered.
  9. On the first point, most business taken at an inquorate meeting will be invalid, because it violates absentee rights (p. 251, e,). Even if the assembly "erroneously" determines that no breach took place, that does not change the fact there was no quorum and that business was transacted that was taken in violation of absentee rights. The breach continues and can be corrected. Suppose that there was a quorum, but several members were excluded from the meeting improperly; the exclusion was sufficient to have effective the result. The meeting, still excluding the several members, sustains the chair's ruling that the exclusion was proper. Would that prevent the next meeting from correcting this breach? No, because the action is still a violation of the rules protecting absentees. In regard to the motion to Fix a Time to Adjourn, that motion may be adopted in the absence of a quorum.
  10. Yes, I didn't hit the "e" hard enough.
  11. A unanimous vote simply means that there is no opposition voiced on the motion, e.g. unanimous consent. A vote of on in favor, none against and 5,000 abstentions is a unanimous vote. Except for unanimous consent, RONR does not really discuss or require unanimous votes. You bylaws may define them, if they require them for something.
  12. If there no absentees, it could be done without notice. That possibility is very unlikely.
  13. It is a transference of votes, primarily. In many cases, however, a member grants his proxy and then does not attend the meeting. It can violate the "one-member-one-vote" rule, but also be a form of absentee voting.
  14. Yes, a polling time and place can be set by motion. The result, unless your bylaws say otherwise, must be announced a meeting of the HOA; it may be necessary to hold another special meeting. The member who didn't vote at the meeting because he thought that he had given a proxy (but didn't) may vote at any time that the polls are open.
  15. To me, the key is the term "eligible confessing members." That sets a parameter. There is a presumably finite group of these members, and these members are not the same as "eligible confessing members present and voting at a meeting" (or "votes cast") or the "eligible confessing members present at a meeting." I have to conclude that "eligible confessing members" means just that, all eligible confessing members. In looking at the change, the body specifically removed the term "votes cast." To use the standard language, the body only needed to strike one word, "majority." This, to me, indicates that the body did not wish to base its decision on an amendment to the bylaws on the number of "votes cast." I will concede that the group that adopted the bylaw may have made not understood the implication of adopting this; that does not change the plain wording of the amended text. Even looking at the history of this adoption, the assembly went out of the way to abolish the idea of basing this on just a percentage of the eligible confessing members voting or attending a meeting.
  16. I do not see a problem either. Life membership generally entails a waiving of further dues and requires the person to be a member. Anyone reaching an age of NN that is not a member would not become one upon that birthday. Even if there were other qualifications, i.e. the member lives in a specific region, in a particular profession, or has attended a certain school, not everybody in that subgroup would necessarily be a member.
  17. I agree. One advantage to scheduling it may be to explain the process to the assembly in preparation.
  18. While I agree, how certain is "certain?" A motion, "That we postpone this action until our attorney arrives," would seem to be in order, if the attorney is expected to be at that meeting. What if he got sick, or his wife was having a baby and he wanted to be there, he was delayed in traffic, or just forgot about the meeting?
  19. I will also agree with this interpretation. The line is "a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the eligible Confessing Members." It refers to the members in toto, not a subset of those people that show up at a meeting or those who vote.
  20. While I would not use the word "fundamental," I agree. The only exceptions might be if the bylaws are silent on membership or if they would permit such a rule to be adopted at a lower level, i.e. a special rule. I have seen the second one occur.
  21. I also agree. When a society adopts a parliamentary authority, it is permitted to do things authorized by that authority. RONR is clear that, even after it is adopted by society, the society may adopt procedural rules that will supersede RONR, in most cases. On one point, however, I disagree. A society has an inherent right to adopt rules, unless that is limited by the bylaws or some higher level rule. If the society had no parliamentary authority, it could adopt special rules of order. RONR is clear that an entire parliamentary authority may be adopted, even if there is no authorization in the bylaws to do so (p. 15, ll. 28-32). A society does not need authorization in RONR nor its bylaws to exercise its rule-making ability.
  22. It is patterned on a body of 435 members using it, the USA House.
×
×
  • Create New...