Our Residential Condo Association and a Commercial Association occupy the same building; commercial units on the bottom floors and the residential units are on the upper floors. The associations split shared expenses and project costs
The residential Association has regularly scheduled monthly meetings and an Executive Board consisting of 7 members.
At a regular monthly meeting of the our Residential Condo Association’s Executive Board with six directors attending, “Mr. A” moved to split costs of a project between the Residential Association and the Commercial Plaza Association in the ratio of 75%/25%, respectively. The motion was seconded. After debate, the motion was put to a vote and defeated 4 to 2, “Mr. A” being 1 of the 2 votes for the motion.
“Mr. A” immediately then made a motion to split the costs 60%40%. It was seconded and then debated. A vote was taken and the motion adopted 4 to 2.
At the beginning of the next regularly scheduled monthly meeting of the Residential Association Executive Board and with 6 directors present, “Mr. B” made a motion to amend the agenda to include discussion of the 60/40 distribution split adopted at the previous month's meeting (#2 above). Motion was seconded and the chair accepted the addition to the agenda.
At the proper time, “Mr. B” moved to nullify the previously adopted motion, (#2 above), primarily citing that it was out of order for “Mr. A” on March 27th, 2017, to make the motion since he was not on the prevailing side of defeated first motion (#1 above). The motion was seconded and debated.
The Chair then ruled that the motion could not be put to a vote until he was satisfied a parliamentary rule had been violated. No motion, however was made to table, delay or otherwise postpone the question.
“Mr. B” stated that the motion had already been properly brought to the Executive Board, seconded, opened for debate and was on the table for the Board to decide. Regardless of whether or not “Mr. B’s” reasoning was correct, it has no bearing on the proper next step of procedure, i.e., resolve the question by a vote. “Mr. B.” proceeded to “call the question”.
The chair then made a motion to adjourn. It was not seconded
“Mr B” then stated that the motion to nullify was still pending. The Chair then put the question to a vote of the Executive Board and it resulted in a 3-3 tie.
Since there was a tie, “Mr. B” then asked the Chair to include the question in #4 above, as an item on the next regularly scheduled meeting. The Chair agreed to do so and also would seek a parliamentarian’s opinion on the motion made in #2 above. The Chair proceeded to the next item on the agenda
Should #2 been ruled out of order at the first meeting?
Was “Mr. B” correct for insisting the question in #4 be put to a vote before proceeding with the meeting since no one made another motion to deal with the current main motion to nullify ?