Josh Martin

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Josh Martin

  • Rank
    Professional Registered Parliamentarian
  • Birthday 09/05/1986

Profile Information

  • Location
    Minneapolis, MN
  • Interests
    reading, writing, video games, parliamentary procedure

Recent Profile Visitors

1,789 profile views
  1. As I understand the facts, the President never declared the motion adopted. He perhaps should have, but the fact remains that the motion was not adopted, so I don't see how the board is at fault here. As to whether the President should be disciplined, this is a decision for the society to make. In making this decision, the society should not only take into account whether the President was correct, but also whether the President acted in good faith.
  2. Yes, it is in order to renew the motion at the next meeting.
  3. When the vacancy in the office of President occurs on September 1st, the Vice President will become President, and you will have a vacancy in the office of Vice President. At your next meeting, you may give notice of the intent to fill this vacancy, and at the following meeting, you may hold an election to fill the vacancy.
  4. If an assembly insists upon taking a straw poll, I would advise taking a recess rather than suspending the rules. This avoids any confusion as to whether the straw poll is the position of the assembly and also has the advantage of only requiring a majority vote. Members have the right to vote. So far as RONR is concerned, it's one vote per person, but since this is an HOA, I would not be surprised if the organization's bylaws or applicable law provide otherwise.
  5. That would appear to be the case. The organization's bylaws state "All resignations shall be presented in writing to the Secretary and referred by the Secretary to the Board of Trustees."
  6. The OP is talking about a situation where the rules require a vote of a majority of the members present, and there are sixteen members present. In such a case, nine votes in the affirmative will be required to adopt a motion. So if there is a vote of 8 to 6, the chair may vote in the affirmative if he wishes to do so. I concur with the other posters that it is ambiguous whether the organization's rules do, in fact, require a vote of a majority of the members present, and that it will be up to the organization to make this determination.
  7. I do not think such a suspension is in order. It appears to me to violate the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one question is immediately pending at a time. The problems which Mr. Katz illustrated show why this rule exists. I also concur with Mr. Goldsworthy that this attempt is unwise. If this is a competition, and you are required to process a main motion, a primary amendment, and a secondary amendment, then I am certain that the judges want to see your team actually process each of those motions.
  8. I disagree strongly. While I do not dispute that there are some issues "too small to raise a ruckus," the fact that no other member raises the issue is not, in and of itself, an indication that this is the case. The issue may not have been raised because other members are unaware of the rule, or do not know the proper procedure for challenging a ruling of the chair. It is not clear that no one challenged the ruling because no one cared to do so. As to the "supported by a majority" comment, it will not necessarily be immediately clear which side the majority will support. Additionally, the chair's ruling becomes a part of the minutes and the society's precedents, so I would argue that there is a penalty to allowing an erroneous ruling to go unchallenged (not to mention any immediate effects of the ruling, such as suppressing a proper motion, or adjourning a meeting when it is not clear the majority supports doing so). I would assume that the member who made the motion to Reconsider, at the very least, cared about reconsideration.
  9. I would say that all members of an assembly "have an ethical duty to ensure that the rules are followed even if the correction would run counter to their interests." I don't think being "learned in parliamentary law" imposes any additional duties in this regard, although it may mean the member is more able to carry out this duty. You should move to Appeal from the decision of the chair. The chair has already made a ruling, so Appeal is the appropriate motion in this case, not Point of Order. Assuming that this is not one of the situations where the chair can declare a meeting adjourned on his own (and it does not seem to be), you should raise a Point of Order. I would note that in addition to an ethical duty to other members, allowing the chair to set bad precedents may not be in your best interest in the long term.
  10. If a member wishes to make a motion regarding a timeline for the board to complete this matter, or otherwise provide instructions to the board regarding this issue, then he is free to do so.
  11. There's no time limit unless the motion specified one. Additionally, the part of the motion which "tabled" discussion of this issue was most likely not in order.
  12. There is no parliamentary requirement to specify any dollar amount at all in a motion to spend money on a project, although it is probably a good idea. If the board wishes to give the officers responsible for carrying out the motion a blank check, it is free to do so.
  13. No, I don't think it is appropriate for the chair to admonish a board member during a meeting on the basis of past misbehavior or to warn against potential future misbehavior. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 644-648 for the appropriate procedures to use if and when the board member becomes unruly again.
  14. It is up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws.