Need 2 Learn

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Need 2 Learn

  1. Thanks to all on this thread ; you covered a number of motions, . This hypothetical and all of your input will resonate as a solid example of how to use RONR concepts.
  2. Ah the rub.! As with any sufficiently compelling mystery novel, I have a plot twist, Mr.. A's original motion #1 was that both the capital expense portion of the project and the ongoing and future maintenance expense be split 75%/25%. Motion seconded . Defeated 4-2. Mr. A's 2nd motion was that the capital expense be split 60%/40% and the ongoing and future maintenance expense be split 75%/25% as in the original motion. Motion seconded and approved 4-2. Does this change anyone's thoughts? Would it have been more appropriate to have a motion to split the question?
  3. This is fascinating to hear such eloquent and lucid opinions... It seems obvious to me now that timely action is the best solution as it keeps the deliberative process on a much less nebulous path. So how can we fix our process so motions are not allowed at the time of the committee reports and without notice? By-law change? Standing rule, if there is such a thing? This is what started the whole mess? Thanks!
  4. Our agenda, although not required in the by laws, is 1 Call to order 2 Role Call for quorum 3 Resident Discussion and/or Guest presentation; participation beyond this point is limited to observation 4 Committee reports - This is when Mr. A made his 1st and 2nd motions 5 Approval of Minutes 6 Old Business 7 New Business 8 Adjournment Should we not allow motions at the point Mr. A made his?
  5. What constitutes "notice"? Does Mr B's motion in #3 above at the beginning of the meeting constitute "notice" and lower the threshold of adoption
  6. Sorry, I meant to say 1st Motion
  7. Thanks Alexis. Can you clarify if Mr. A's 2nd motion needs to be amended before it is voted on. Under what circumstances does Mr. A's 2nd motion require a motion to reconsider? Should the 2nd motion wait until the rest of the agenda is finished and be brought up as new business?
  8. 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 Two questions: 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 ?