Weldon Merritt

Well, I'm still not sure that it would be prohibited. But I certainly agree that it would be completely illogical.

Oh; ok. I should have read the sample bylaws and not just you post. But now I'm even more confused. How does removing an explicit prohibition on holding multiple offices at the same time lead to a conclusion that doing so is prohibited "by necessary implication"? Or are you just saying that the nature of the positions prohibits serving in more than one of them?

I can buy that. But I still don't see what a provision that "No member shall be eligible to serve three consecutive terms in the same office" has to do with it.

This is not an RONR issue. You need to look at any applicable statutes or regulations.

No, you had 14 votes total. Abstentions are not votes. And as Mr. Katz said, the motion passed, unless there is some rule that requires more than an unqualified majority. And assuming you had a quorum.

Ah, yes. A variation of the "not hole." An easy mistake to make.

That is not correct with regard to a secret (i.e., ballot) vote. In a ballot vote, the chair votes along with everyone else (unless abstaining).

I think it would be a standing rule, not a special rule of order.

Agreeing with Mr. Martin, I will add that there are some (maybe many) who believe that at a meeting of the general membership, board members, except for the chair and the secretary (and the parliamentarian if applicable) should not sit at the head table. The board, as such, is not present at a meeting of the general membership. Any board members who happen to be present are there as members of the assembly, just as any other members of the organization.

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."