jstackpo

1 minute ago, Guest Lila Rhyne said:

President of the Board.  I believe he is not allowed to make a motion. 

"not allowed" may be a bit strong, unless you have such a rule. RONR doesn't, particularly if this is a "small board".

However, there is nothing wrong with the president getting with a friend (if he has any) ahead of time to ask the friend to make the rescind motion.   That's called "leadership", or "politics".   The president can thus retain the aura of impartiality, as he/she should, in the meeting.

By "approving" reports you, collectively, buy into everything in the report which, depending on what the report says, may be a bit much to swallow.

Suppose the treasurer  heads out to Cancun with the treasury tomorrow, but left an innocent looking treasurer's report at tonight's meeting, which was them approved.    I have no idea how the "approval" might influence later (legal) attempts to get the bank account back, but I suspect is sure wouldn't help.

17 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

Or written by someone with the last name Roberts

Which "The Elements of Style" (Strunk & White) tell us should be written as "Roberts's..."  (if the author's family name indeed had been Roberts) right there on page 1.

Certainly, as do most amendments to debatable main motions.

Actually... the Treasurer's Report as such is not supposed to be approved at all.  See RONR page 479, line 5.   What gets approved is the Auditors' Report.  Perhaps that is what you did approve, or accept.  

And propose amendments to clarify things as soon as possible...

(I know, I know...nag, nag, nag  --  but that's what we parliamentarians do.)

I suppose, but I have difficulty seeing how "tally sheets" would be used or constructed for a rising counted vote.   Unless, maybe, in a big meeting, the tellers would count sub-sections of the meeting area, write their numbers down, and a chief teller would do the sum for the report to the chair. Not much room for error there.

I'd think the largest (potential) error would be in the tellers doing the counting, and a "recount" doesn't redo that. Guess the "re-vote" would next be by ballot, if a majority agreed to take the time and do that.

Or rent reliable electronic clickers in the first place.

Page 410, lines 31-35 endorse a recount of a "rising counted vote". 

How is that to be done when, as is most common, the tellers count their side of the room (say) and report their number to the chair?  They can't just do it again since that would amount to retaking the vote "by the same form of voting". 

Looks to me that the cited lines overstate the possibilities. 

(Granted, p. 411, lines 19-21 help a bit but in a rather rare situation;  p. 410 is still too sweeping in my view.)

25 minutes ago, reelsman said:

 motion that proposes to place before the assembly multiple, independent solutions to a problem is not in order. 

Correct, but there is nothing wrong with an amendment by substitution of an entirely different motion (as long as it is germane, &c.).

And nothing wrong with telling folks ahead of time about the main motion and the (possible) amendments that will be offered in turn.

Sure, which may be a good reason to include a proviso delaying the implementation of the changes until after the election is completed.

Sure.

But... please start a new thread / topic with a new question rather than piggybacking on a 5 or so year old thread. 

Nothing wrong with making "A" the main motion listed in the pre-distributed agenda... AND   including a statement that once "A" is moved, a member will move "B" as an amendment (or amendment by substitute).   Describe fully what "A" and "B" are all about in the meeting notice and everybody will be ready -- oh, boy, will they ever be ready...

Make sure your chairman bones up on how to handle amendments by substitution - it is a tad complicated.  See page 153.  Good luck!

I suppose you could make all the "I object" motions you would like, but until the bylaws are amended to remove the exclusive (from what you say) appointment power of the President, they probably aren't going to go anywhere.

Probably not.  A "Board Meeting" would be a meeting of the  Board members, as called per the bylaws, or a previously adopted resolution. See page 575.

The public might be invited, but that is up to he Board.

Or if you wish to stick with what you have (not, per JK, a good idea) your policy could be amended using the motion to amend something previously adopted - see page 305 for appropriate details.

But do get rid of the "range" for the number of board members, for sure.

Welcome to the ever exciting world of condominia where essentially random people are thrust together with nothing whatsoever in common, except the roof.  The roof leaks. But the folks living on the first floor don''t care about that, either!

Perfectly OK - RONR page 433.

It might be good politics (or form) if the nominee resigned from the committee, but he/she is not required to.

Is he a member of the Exec Committee?  The bylaws should answer that question.  If "yes", then "Yes".
 

/

And just to be crystal clear (if not pedantic...) the motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted is not involved here; you are proposing a new motion to "remove from office" - p. 574. (The notice and vote requirements are the same, however.)

Also tell us if the ARC, per the bylaws (or the "covenant", or whatever the document is called  that establishes the HOA), has full authority to act on such matters, or is merely an advisory group to the Board.  Quote the bylaws, please; no paraphrases.

And it is, of course, worth noting that "determining if a quorum is present" is something the chair does before calling the meeting to order - p. 25, line 10.

But...  there is nothing in RONR that precludes making and adopting a motion proposing to do an illegal act - only procedural laws are improper to contravene.

The end of "suspend the rules" is automatic:  when the stated purpose of the suspension is completed, the suspension ends.

Since this deals with a government function, at least indirectly, seem that a lawyer shoud be brought in on this.

Off the top of my non-legal head, I'd say the groups had better come to  total agreement on just one document or else arguments over the differences will come up, for sure.

A start would be a joint meeting - sort of like an RONR "Mass Meeting" - to hash out the differences.  Or a joint committee as in congress.

Public Body Question:  You will have to ask a lawyer about that as we don't (can't) do legal questions here - just RONR, thank you. RONR has no "all in public" rules.

Second:  No. An ex-officio member has ALL the membership rights as any other member of the body.