Weldon Merritt

One of the basic rights of membership is the right to make motions. So yes, unless your bylaws or some superior rule restrict that right, members (of the body that is meeting) have a right to make motions regardless of whether the motion is an "agenda item." The only exception would be if the motion is one that requires previous notice (typically, e.g., a bylaws amendment). That does not, however, mean that the motion must be voted on at the same meeting. It must be dealt with in some manner (unless it is legitimately ruled out of order). But that could include actions such as being postponed indefinitely, being referred to a committee with instruction to report at a later meeting, or being postponed to the next meeting, all of which may be accomplished by a majority vote.

More accurately, they are "two forms of one incidental main motion governed by identical rules." RONR (12th ed.) 35:1. As such, either form (to rescind or to amend) can be amended by substituting the other form. 35:2(6).

With Dr. Kapur's clarification, I am now in agreement with him.

Yes; but it seemed to me that Dr. Kapur was referring to meeting 2 as being the preceding meeting at which notice for meeting 3 could be given. But either way, my main point was that valid notice cannot be given at an inquorate meeting. If I missed Dr. Kapur's point entirely, then I apologize.

I think you mean "the preceding meeting." But to answer your question, RONR 40:9 specifies, "a notice ... cannot be validly given." So it seems that those who want to "withdraw" the rule will have to wait for meeting 3 to give notice, and meeting 4 to take the action. And hope that both meetings have a quorum.

Amend your bylaws to allow it.

That's a good point. But if this is a standing committee with ongoing jurisdiction, and they were reporting on something they originated rather than something committed to them, then I don't think "recommit" would be applicable.

You don't, in the minutes of the meeting where the report was submitted. If whoever submitted the report wants to add a sixth point, they should submit a supplemental report at the next meeting.

Guest Mary Hruska, please post your question as a new topic. This thread is over six years old!

Guest LIH, please post your question as a new topic. This thread is more than two years old!

It's not clear whether these would be bylaws changes, or changes to an adopted policy. But either way, the default is that motions are effective immediately on adoption. So if you want to delay the effective date, you will need to include the delay as part of the motion itself (such as by a proviso). Whether you should postpone the changes is a matter that the assembly will have to decide for itself. Perhaps the existing budget could be amended to take account of the changes.

I, too, think it is likely to become much more common, if not in fact "the new norm." But I'm not sure Mr. Martin was saying that that this would not happen. I read his statement as simply meaning that he had not, up to now, seen it used much by larger assemblies.

Mr. Elsman beat me to the punch. But I will add that in most other contexts, it has never been standard too cite line numbers for the simple reason that most publications don't include them. It shouldn't be too difficult for someone who wants to check the accuracy of a quotation to find the text within the cited section and paragraph.

Depending on how the association was created, that may not be possible. There very well may be covenants that require homeowners to belong. But if nit, then I concur with Mr. Elsman's advice.

So what? As we have told you, a tie vote defeats the motion. It's not a "deadlock." Just record the motion as lost and move on.

Agreeing with Dr. Kapur, I will just add that your inclusion of the qualifier, "with an even number of people," reveals a common misconception that a tie can occur only if there is an even number of members. With an odd number of members, absences or abstentions also could result in an even number actually voting, which could result in a tie. But as Dr. Kapur stated, there is no need to break the tie; the motion simply fails. (But it cam be made again at the next, or any subsequent, meeting in hopes of a different outcome.)

Unfortunately, I won't be at the meeting. It is a real situation that was brought to my attention (at least the initial scenario is), but I'm not directly involved. If I am able to find out what happens at the next meeting, I will come back and let you know.

I think you are absolutely right! I hadn't thought of it that way, but it makes sense. Thanks.

I agree. Now if instead, he names different members. and no one raises an immediate point of order, could a legitimate point be raised later?

Yes. So if the motion is not divisible, then certainly it would have to stand or fall as a whole. But if the it were divisible (unfortunately, I don't have a good example in mind), could the part relating to the committee be ruled null and void while leaving the other part intact?

Fair enough. I'll make it less hypothetical. A motion "that Board meetings be electronically recorded, and the recordings be provided to the Secretary for accuracy, and with Board members permitted to review the recordings," had been adopted at a previous meeting. Subsequently, a motion was adopted "to delay the effect of the original motion, and to appoint a committee consisting of [specified members] to investigate whether electronic recording of Board meetings was legal, and if it was determined to be legal, to then develop policies and procedures for recording of meetings, including appropriate protections, for the Board’s consideration at its next meeting." Actually, in considering it further, I'm not sure if the motion is divisible, since the reason for delaying the effect of the first motion is to allow investigation by the committee. But for purposes of my question, let's assume it is divisible, and that it would be in order as a stand-alone motion. It is the second part of the motion that creates a problem. While the assembly may create a special committee, thee bylaws give the president to authority to appoint the members. so the motion as adopted is in violation of the bylaws. In this instance, could the chair rule the second part null and void, and leave the first part intact?

Rob, I agree that the literal reading of the rule supports your interpretation. Now suppose that the president is perfectly happy with the chair and members named in the motion, and goes ahead and names them to the committee. Does that cure the breach?

The question is somewhat related to my previous thread, but different enough that I thought I should start a new thread. Suppose the bylaws clearly and unequivocally give the president the sole authority to appoint the chair and members of all committees. (No exception for when the president is absent, or any other exception.) Suppose further that the assembly adopts a motion, in the president's absence, creating a special committee (which is within the assembly's authority) and naming the chair and members. May the president ignore the part of the motion that purports to name the chair and members, and appoint his own choices (which might include all or some of the ones named in the motion), or should the motion be ruled null and void on the ground that it is in violation of the bylaws?

Just a quick follow-up. Suppose the motion was not divisible on demand, but legitimately could have been subject to a Division of the Question. Would that make a difference in the answer?

Suppose a motion that was divisible on demand was adopted, with no one demanding its division. Subsequently, either in response to a Point of Order or the chair's own initiative, the chair rules that one part of the motion created a continuing breach. May that part (only) of the motion be ruled null and void, leaving the other part intact? Or since the motion was not divided, and was adopted by a single vote, must the entire motion stand or fall together?