Weldon Merritt

What gives you that impression? RONR specifically allows the making of a motion containing a blank. RONR (12th ed.) 12:95a.

I'm not so sure that being elected to one office necessarily means that the member would be ineligible for election to the other office. Even if the bylaws prohibit holding two offices, the member might decide to decline the first one (or resign, if he already had accepted it). More important, even if the votes for that member are illegal, they still count as votes case, and are included in calculation of the majority. If the other candidate did not receive a majority of the votes cast (including the illegal votes), a new election still would have to be held.

I agree. And if that's what is intended, that's what the bylaws should say. Using the term "co-chair" can create confusion, as this thread illustrates.

There may be a subtle difference between a provision that creates co-chairs (plural) and one that creates a chair and a co-chair (two singular nouns). The former clearly seems to make the two positions co-equal, but the latter could be seem as more equivalent to a chair and a vice chair. Consider, as an analogy, a pilot and co-pilot. I think most people would understand the pilot to be in charge and the co-pilot to be there to assist.

Indeed you did. I failed to look back at that post, or I would have mentioned that you already had given the citation.

RONR 46:32n1.

Not necessarily. You also can download the Kindle app to your Smart Phone or computer. At least an Android phone and a Windows PC. I'm not sure if the app is available for Apple products. However, I do agree that it would be better to have a different digital version like we had for the 11th edition.

The only other opinion I will express is that you should check the state statutes regarding HOAs to see if they have anything to say about voting. Anything they say on the subject will take precedence over RONR and your bylaws (unless they say something like, "unless otherwise provided in the bylaws ...").

I don't know if it's "the entire raison d'etre," but it's certainly an example of when the motion could be used to good effect. But remember, the motion must be made by someone who voted on the prevailing side. So "the opposition" may need to strategize a bit and decide who will vote contrary to their true wishes.

Would that not still require a suspension of the rules if the intent is to allow members to vote for or against every option?

Mr. Honemann has given you the correct answer according to RONR. (No surprise there.) I will add that the rules could be suspended to provide for taking a vote on all suggestions, so that members can vote yes or no on each one. If that method is followed, and more than one suggestion receives a majority, the one with the highest majority fills the blank. Of course, this method takes a lot longer and probably would require a counted vote on each suggestion.

Good question. RONR doesn't make a distinction in 45:48, but I certainly can see an argument that the small board rules themselves create the distinction. I see that Mr. Elsman is of the opinion that the chair's name should be called alphabetically along with the others'. (I assume he means when the board is operating under the small board rules.) I agree that his interpretation is a reasonable one. Based on my (somewhat limited) observation, however, I think that in practice, most boards observe the practice of calling the chair's name last, regardless of the board's size.

It violates no rule in RONR. Whether it is or is not "legal" according to any applicable statute, consult an attorney. Yes, the chair should be called on last in a roll call. (RONR 45:48) Under RONR, the other members generally are called in alphabetical order, but it may be that the applicable statute requires rotation. Even if that is not so, doing it that way would not cause the vote to be invalid.

See RONR (12th ed.) 56:19. The membership article in the bylaws should contain "any limitation on their number" (i.e., a cap on the number of members. Of course, if you haven't adopted RONR (which seems to be the case), that provision is not necessarily binding; but it's certainly persuasive. Bylaws are rules (specifically, the organization's "own basic rules relating principally to itself as an organization," RONR 2:8), so it is "a 'rules' change." But if the board is trying to say that it doesn't require a bylaws amendment because it is some other sort of rule (such as a standing rule), they are wrong. (I suppose a membership cap could be placed in a standing rule, but only if the bylaws provide that it may be placed in the standing rules.)

I suppose not. But I wasn't the author of the special rule in question. I think a better wording would be, "A member may not conclude his debate by moving the previous question."

But then it wouldn't be "at the conclusion of his speech." It would make just as much sense (very little IMO) to argue that the first part of Mr. Brown's example would prevent moving the Previous Question at all. If the intent were to prevent PQ entirely, the rule would need to say something like, "A motion for the Previous Question shall not be allowed."

No. It would prevent the member from speaking in debate and concluding with a motion for the Previous Question. But it would not prevent the members from moving the Previous Question immediately on being recognized.

How do you decide on these "action items"? It seems to me that the only legitimate way to create any such "action items" is by adoption of a main motion. And since the wording al all main motions are supposed to be included in the minutes, I would say not only is there no rule preventing you from listing them, they absolutely should be listed. If you mean something else, please let us know with a specific example.

He still has not right to have his dissent recorded, but his request still can be granted by majority vote.

Well if the two of you agree, who am I to disagree?😀

I confess that I haven't kept up with this thread. I might need to think about it a while.

I concur. While I correctly said that the motion can't be renewed, I failed to note that it can be reconsidered.

I concur with that thought. I think it falls squarely within the provisions of 8:15, barring renewal "the same or substantially the same question" at the same meeting. The fact that the original motion was amended does not alter the prohibition, regardless of how it was amended.

No rule in RONR would preclude it. But whether it should happen is up to the appointing authority.

The best defense against that, if you think they might be wrong, is to ask them to show you the rule.