Weldon Merritt

Until you can amend your bylaws to say what you want them to day, you must follow what the currently say. So unless the bylaws themselves give you the option to do whet you are describing, you can't do it.

A board has only the authority granted to it in the bylaws. So if the bylaws do not grant the board the authority to do these things, then they can't. They can recommend these actions, but it is up tp the membership tyo accept the recommendations of not.

True. But if you do that for everything in the bylaws that depends on a term in RONR, you are likely to have very long bylaws. And there is always the danger that you will not get if quite right. I prefer to educate members on what RONR terms mean.

Darn! Typing and proofreading are not my forte!

I concur with Dr. Kapur. But although you didn't ask about the vote requirement, I feel compelled to point out that the wording of your Article IX is problematic. The wording could be interpreted to mean that amendments coed be adopted by less than a majority of the members present. Example: Say you have 10 members present. A majority opt of ten is sox six. And 2/3 of a majority (2/3 of 6) is four. So an amendment could be adopted by four votes, even if everyone else voted no! That, of course, seems absurd, and I'm confident that this is not what the drafters meant, but that is a lateral interpretation. And this is the sort of thing than can happen when a group tries to come up with its own language when the RONR language serves quote well. I recommend amending the provision to say either "a two-thirds vote" (which is the RONR-preferred term and means two-thirds of those present and voting) or "a vote of two-thirds of the members present" (which has the effect of making abstentions the equivalent of a negative vote, if that's what you really want). In neither case is the term "majority" appropriate. A majority is one thing; two-thirds is another. (Obviously, two-thirds is a majority, but the converse is not necessarily true. Any fraction larger than one-half is a majority.)

Then how was the groups group established? And how do you know what officers you have? Or anything else about its structure?

Oops! My bad. I should have proofread better.

Do you intend for this to be a studding standing committee or a special committee? If it is a standing committee, and the standing committees are listed in the bylaws, you will need to amend the bylaws to add a new committee, unless the bylaws authorize anther means of creating a new standing committee. And even if it is to be a special committee, the bylaws may very well specify how the chair and members are selected. So you should check the bylaws to make sure that what you want to do is allowed. Assuming nothing in the bylaws would preclude it, I agree with Mr. Martin's response, whish he posted before I completed my response.

Please quite the bylaws provision regarding resignation and filling of vacancies verbatim. Don't paraphrase. Also, which officer resigned?

For whatever it is worth, I concur with Dr. Kapur's interpretation.

Some motion require a two-thirds vote for adoption of made without previous notice, but if previous notice is given, they may be adopted by a majority vote. So previous notice thus lowers the threshold for adoption from two-thirds to a majority.

Why on earth would you think it could not be?

Mr. Katz beat me to the punch with his excellent, and correct, response. As far as why someone might turn in a blank ballot, it could be that they don't want it to be obvious that they didn't vote, or they may mistakenly believe that an abstention has some effect.

Are you absolutory sure of this? While not impossible, it is a bit unusual for the officers to not be voting members of the board. Do your bylaws actually say that the officers are non-voting members (or maybe not members at all) of the board?

I know of no rue in RONR that would prelude it, assuming that entity holding the special meeting has the authority "to discuss personnel issues regarding the chairperson of the session." And also assuming that the meeting is otherwise properly called.

I I don't things that means that those are teh only matters a special meeting can be called for. It seems to me that a special meeting can deal with anything that is listed in teh call. (Assuming, of course, that there is no bylaw or higher level rule that requires the matter to be considered at a regular meeting.) As to the questions, however, I;m not at al sure of the answers.

No.

Provided that the committee consists of at least two members. A one-person committee is rare, but no impossible.

Well, yes. That's certainly a possibility. "Anything" is, admittedly, a bit too broad. But may major point was that yes, the chair may ask, but the member need not comply.

The chairperson may ask anything they want. But the member is under no obligation to comply. He cannot be compelled to leave the meeting. And although he should not vote on his own application, he cannot be compelled to abstain. The above answer, assume that the rules on RONR apply. If the condo association's bylaws have a different rule, that rule would apply. But I suspect that association does not have contrary rules, or you probably wouldn't be asking the question.

Rob, you are just flat-out wring about your "one seat" assertion. There is nothing in RONR prohibiting a member from holding multiple seats on a board. Any such provision would have to be in the bylaws. I do agree, however, that the member gets only one vote, regardless of teh number of seats held.

My bad! The post was a question' I just misread it as a statement of what the president had done. Mr. Martin read it correctly, and gave the correct answer,.

Do you have a question?

PI is debatable. Suspend the rules is not. So if the goal is to then PI alone won't do it.

I think that such a motion would still be an action that was taken at the meeting where it occurred. I can't imagine whey the assembly would take such an action at an inquorate meeting, but if they did, I agree that there would be no need to ratify that action, because action of a COTW are not action of the assembly. But any actions taken by the assembly based on recommendations of the COTW would be ratifiable.