Weldon Merritt

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?

The fact that the motion was made, and the wording of the motion, needs to be reflected. but the second does not need to be noted.

Or at least have the good sense not to elect one person to so many positions. Yes, I know the likely argument: "No one else was interested in serving." But if that's the case, it may be time to consider abolishing some of the positions and reassigning the duties. Or even to consider dissolving the organization for lack of interest.

I can see where you're coming from, and it's not an unreasonable position. But I'm still not convinced. While the approval of the minutes by a group other than the assembly does not take place within a meeting of the assembly, the process of authorizing another group to do so does. So I still believe that the authorization can be in a special rule of order.

So would I, but I wanted to give Richard a chance to rethink his advice. Or at least to convince me that it would have to be in the bylaws.

Richard, do you think that would have to be in the bylaws? Or would a special rule of order be sufficient?

Seems pretty fishy to me.😀

Agreeing with Mr. Katz, I will just add that even with an odd number of members, it is still possible to have a tie. A member could be absent, or might abstain.

Robertsrulesonline.com is not the official RONR website. I believe it is based on to 4th edition of Robert's Rules, which is the earliest edition that is no longer copyrighted. You need to be referring to the 12th edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. And the official website is www.robertsrules.com. Take a look at Official Interpretation 2006-7. I don't think I can add anything of substance to what that opinion says.

Yes. Post your question as a new topic, instead of tacking it onto one that is four months old. (And when you repost, correct they typo in the quote.)

Please post the exact wording of the provision in you bylaws regarding the calling of special meetings.

I agree that the violation would constitute a continuing breech, although I think the more pertinent exception to the timeliness requirement is that it was a violation of a rule protecting absentees. 23:6(e). I am less sure regarding whether the inartfully stated, and unappealed, point of order precludes raising a proper point of order in the future. On the one hand, RONR's statement that "a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breech" doesn't say, "unless a previous point of order was raised." But on the other hand, it seems that there should be some finality to a ruling on point of order.