Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. J. J.

    Appropriateness of Bi-Laws Amendment

    This would apply motions that change the rules, i.e. a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. It would not apply to all main motions. For rules of order (p. 15) , RONR mandates a two-thirds vote with previous notice or a majority of the entire membership. There nothing improper about adopting this rule.
  3. Joshua Katz

    Member

    I don't really follow, but I think you're asking if items can be arranged on an agenda in an order other than that of the standard order of business. An agenda need not follow the standard order of business.
  4. Guest

    Member

    When someone "moved" and "second" to arrange the agenda from most important item(s) to talk first, can he/she move some items in "New Business" to any place on the agenda or just within the "New Business" only? For example: "New Business" item D on the agenda is more important then "Unfinished Business" items A, B,C or "New Business" items A, B, C. Hope this make sense.
  5. Richard Brown

    Failing to Call the Meeting to Order

    Yes, the meeting was still legitimate.
  6. If at the annual meeting, the Chairperson, as verified by the Secretary, announced the presence of a quorum, whether in-person or by proxy, but did not call the meeting to order: Is the meeting viewed as proper and valid. Only committee and Board reports were items on the agenda. No actions were taken during the meeting, except the motion to adjourn.
  7. Yesterday
  8. DR Stockley

    Appropriateness of Bi-Laws Amendment

    Yes, Joshua, they do indeed do seem to do as they wish. Although, their actions are not always in their best interest. Of course, I've always been of the opinion that if don't show up to vote you really can't complain too much about the outcome.
  9. DR Stockley

    Appropriateness of Bi-Laws Amendment

    Thank you, Richard. That would probably be good to consider. Frankly, I'm not too sure wording referring to"...federal, stale and local laws..." is necessary since we cannot, under our National Charter, do anything in violation of any law anyway.
  10. Joshua Katz

    Appropriateness of Bi-Laws Amendment

    It would seem odd to postpone all motions after deciding not to postpone one. But hey, people do what they do. Well, I'm not sure what purview means here. RONR doesn't have rules about what's in your bylaws (but it has suggestions) because your bylaws outrank it.
  11. Richard Brown

    Appropriateness of Bi-Laws Amendment

    You might consider changing the proposed amendment to apply specifically just to standing rules and special rules of order that are to have a continuing effect. A no-smoking rule, for instance is pretty clearly in the nature of a standing rule. A motion to, say, buy free standing ash trays to place at the clubhouse entrance (or on the clubhouse back porch) is not. It is a motion to do something once, to make a one time purchase. A motion that members and guests must extinguish all cigarettes, cigars and tobacco products before entering the clubhouse would be in the nature of a standing rule: It has continuing effect.
  12. DR Stockley

    Appropriateness of Bi-Laws Amendment

    Thank you for your opinion, Joshua. I think that the proposed amendment stems from a question of whether or not the club room was to be made a non-smoking area when state law did not mandate it. The non-prevailing side of the question seem to feel that the question, although hotly debated among the member present at the time, should have been postponed until they could muster the votes they needed. Their attempt to postpone the vote did not pass, however. It is my belief that this particular amendment is an attempt to appease those members and to give them a means to avoid being caught short on votes should other questions arise that may be closely contested. My concern is that once a clause such as this became part of the by-laws, it could be used to slow the normal workings of the organization. Of course, that may not come under the purview of RONR.
  13. Gary Novosielski

    Agenda items

    Although it's true that RONR has no rule against bringing up new business under New business, it is possible (I have no idea if it's true, particularly in your state) that statutes or admin code may require HoAs to publish an agenda, and to stick to those topics. So it may be necessary to broaden your research beyond the pages of RONR.
  14. Joshua Katz

    Appropriateness of Bi-Laws Amendment

    Well, it's clearly compatible in a trivial sense, since RONR provides that bylaws govern when they conflict with RONR. It's not clear to me that the proposed bylaw would apply to practically all motions made at regular meetings. Many motions, perhaps, adopt or change a standing rule, but most seems too strong to me. As to what I think of it, personally, I think that RONR reflects hundreds of years of wisdom, and has designed rules such that certain motions require notice, others do not but have their thresholds modified by notice, and yet others are not impacted by notice. It then contains yet more rules for dealing with temporary majorities. I think the collected wisdom of the authors over time is generally best, for most organizations, and superior to making it up yourself. But some organizations do have special needs. Notice requirements are, to some extent, an attempt to strike a balance between the rights of absentees and the right of the gathered assembly to act. This proposed bylaw leans very heavily towards the absentees. There might be some special reason to do so, but in general, one thing to note about absentees is that they could have shown up.
  15. While serving on a committee to review and propose amendments to our post by-laws, the following clause was proposed for addition to them: Section 4: To insert "Any motion to change rules and regulations of XXX Post XXXX that fall outside of the purview of federal, state, or local law must be read at two consecutive meetings followed by a vote after the final reading. The Post Commander will be responsible for posting notification of motion following the first reading on post bulletin board and to any other media that is currently in use by the post." I'm of the opinion that the insertion of such a clause would apply to practically all motions made at regular meetings and thus restrict the memberships ability to conduct business in a timely fashion. Since amendments to the by-laws already require a reading at two consecutive meetings with all members in good standing to be notified by first class mail before the final vote being taken requiring a 2/3's vote to pass, I don't see the need for such a clause. This clause would, in my opinion, bypass the normal procedure for the passage of measures that normally require only a majority to adopt. I'm curious as to your opinion of whether this is compatible with parliamentary procedures according to Robert's.
  16. jstackpo

    Agenda items

    And since the adoption of an agenda only sets items of business as general or special orders (p. 371), anything at all (within the scope of business of the association, of course) may come up under "New Business". No need to "suspend rules" at that point. Just make the motion.
  17. Wisdom is not requirement in determining if a motion is in order. You might look at "Follow, Flight, or Flee," National Parliamentarian, Fourth Quarter, 2013, which touches on unwise motions.
  18. Joshua Katz

    Agenda items

    So far as RONR is concerned, organizations which meet as often as quarterly should not use agendas. Nonetheless, they still might, and it appears this one (regardless of how often it meets) does. An agenda, though, is adopted at the meeting, not before (it cannot be adopted before, because its adoption is an item of business, and business is only conducted at meetings, unless your bylaws provide for other means). So, no, it is not the case that all items should be listed prior to the meeting. Rather, at the meeting, the body will take up the question of adopting the proposed agenda, at which time it may be amended prior to adoption. After adoption, it may be amended by the motion to amend something previously adopted, and items of business may be taken up via a motion to suspend the rules. However, as noted, all of that is so far as RONR is concerned. If you have relevant rules and/or applicable procedural statutes, they will take precedence.
  19. Guest

    Agenda items

    A condo board set an executive board agenda with four items but discussed more than was listed on the agenda. Is that correct? Can that be done? Shouldn't all items be listed prior to the meeting?
  20. Shmuel Gerber

    motion to renew?

    About the parliamentarian, he was trying to say also not.
  21. Or the organization's stock holdings could issue a dividend. Point being, to be clear, even if none of those things happened in debate, there's nothing inherently out of order, in my opinion, about adopting the motion. We do not know what the future holds. Think of the consequences if such a motion were out of order. Suppose there is $100 in the bank, and I make a motion to spend $70. In order, right? But how can we know that, before the expenditure, the organization won't be assessed a $40 fine? Exactly. In these days of overdraft protection, it isn't even the case that paying more than is in the account is necessarily impossible or illegal anyway.
  22. I agree with the posts quoted above by J.J. and Gary Novosielski. A motion to spend more money than the organization has in the bank is not our of order per se. A motion to rob a bank to get the money would not be out of order, either, per the 11th edition, as the laws prohibiting bank robbery are not procedural laws. Under previous editions, it might have been out of order to adopt a motion to rob a bank, but the 11th edition (or maybe the 10th) clarified that only violations of procedural laws cause a motion to be out of order. Unwise, perhaps, but not out of order. See pages 3, 125 and 251 of RONR 11th ed.
  23. I agree. The funds (or lack thereof) available might be a subject of debate on the motion, but would not, per se, be a reason to rule the motion out of order. Someone in favor might announce that if the motion passes, she will offer other motions to cut spending in other areas, or to arrange for a loan or for a source of additional income.
  24. But that would require another motion. If it was made first, and adopted, maybe OK. But if the "overspending" motion was made (prior to the "get a loan" motion), it ("overspend") would be out of order as it would be impossible to comply with both motions (initial "spend" and subsequent "overspend") at the same time.
  25. Why? The society could borrow the money.
  26. Sure, but the comment here was about the bank balance, which is something that can change from day to day. Maybe I confused the issue by introducing budgets, but my point was that I don't see any reason it's out of order to plan to spend more than you have, so I don't see why a motion to actually do it is out of order, either.
  27. Atul Kapur, PRP "Student"

    New Motion that contradicts One Approved Previously

    Well, if the total amount budgeted for that item is less than the sum of the January and May motions, then it would be out of order because the May motion would then conflict with the budget, which is a motion adopted and still in force.
  1. Load more activity
×