Weldon Merritt

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.

As I said, I am not sop sure there is a distinction, so far as an assembly is concerned. Certainly, officer, agents, etc. can take actions that are not option. But the assembly? I'm not so sure. And even if an assembly could take an action that is not a motion, I have a hard time envisioning the opposite, a motion that is not an action.

I'm not so sure there is any distinction. Can you give an example of a "motion" that would not be an "action"?

Thanks, Dan. Yes, I meant where in the standard order of business should it come up. There was no nominating committee for the coming election, so nominations will be from the floor. But I will be giving a president's report, and will note that we will need to elect a new VP. So I think either of your suggestions would work well.

When notice of an election to fill a vacancy has been given, and the meeting at which the election is to be held occurs, where in the agenda should the election be placed? I know that when the bylaws schedule the regular election for a particular meeting, the election may be considered under Special Order. (RONR 41:20.) But I'm not so sure about an election to fill a vacancy, held at a time other than the regularly scheduled election meeting. Should it also be considered under Special Orders, or under New Business?

Great analogy, Atul!. I like it!

Oops! I missed that it was a non-member who had been expelled (or, more accuracy I think, ejected) from the property. However, I'm still not so sure that the action can be rescinded. if the ejection has already occurred. See RONR 35:6B (It's not clear whether the non-member has, in fact, vacated the property or has been order to do so and has not yet complied.) It the order has been executed (i.e., the non-member has complied and vacated the property, I still don't think the order can be rescinded. But I believe the membership cloud vote to allow him to again occupy the premises. The main point is that the assembly is not permanently bound by the board's actions.

Yes, it was something adopted previously, by the board. The fact that the membership was not involved in the original decision is irrelevant. You still need to use the motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. See RONR Sec, 35. (But see further discussion below.) See RONR 49:7. I agree that the wording of that provision is not as clear as it could be. It is the society i that must interpret its own bylaws: but IMIO, that language is not specific enough to give the board exclusive authority to expel a member. Buti bear in mind that I have not seen your entire bylaws, and tehri very well could be a provision elsewhere that does give the board that authority. That sheds a different light on the question and makes me realize that my original answer was incomplete. Along the actions that RONR says may not be rescinded or amended is when "a person has been elected to or expelled from membership or office, and the person was present or has been officially notified of the action." RONR 35:6c. I see nothing in RONR to say that the exception wound not apply when it is the board. rather than the fuel membership0, that took the action. So if the member was notified, the it is too late for the membership to reverse that action. However, the same RONR provision goes on to note that the expelled member could be reinstated by "follow[ing] whatever procedure is prescribed by the bylaws for admission or reinstatement."

Yes, except for matters, if any, for which the bylaws give the board exclusive authority. It would be don through a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted.

"Since a reasonable rotation in office is desirable in almost all organizations, a section of this article may well provide that “'No person shall be eligible to serve… consecutive terms [specifying the number] in the same office.' For purposes of determining eligibility to continue in office under such a provision, an officer who has served more than half a term is considered to have served a full term in that office." RONR 50:31. Although this provisions specifically addresses eliminate eligibility to continue in office,. it seems to me that the same principle wood apply to eligibility to be elected again. That is, if a member has been out of office for at least half a term, he would be eligible to fill a vacancy for the remainder of the term. (And still be elected to however manly consecutive terms the bylaws allow.)

Agreeing with Dr. Kapur, I will add that if a motion is made or seconded by someone who does not have the right to do so, and that motion nevertheless is adopted, it is just as validly adopted as if it have been properly made and seconded. AS point of order would have to have been made immediately, before the motion was processed. As an aside, though not directly related to the question, a motion to approve the minutes is never necessary (the chair simply askes if there are any corrections), and a motion to adjourn is seldom necessary. (In most cases, the meeting is simply adjourned without a motion once there is no more business' to conduct. or when a prescheduled time to adjourn has been reached. Only if the maker wants to adjourn earlier would a motion be necessary.).

What do your bylaws say bout the process for amending the bylaws? Whatever process is provided in the bylaws will have to be followed to change them back.

Short answer" Nowhere! And to illustrate why 51% is not the same as majority, consider a situation where there are 200 votes case. 51% would be 102 votes, but a majority (more than hall) is 101. and the larger the number of voters, the greeter the difference between 51% and a majority.

It looks like you'd better work hard at getting everyone to show up and vote n favor of the change. And you shouldn't change it to 51%; you should change it to a majority. (They are not the same.)

So far as RONR is concerned. no one has a right to see the draft minutes before they are presented for approval. Before they are approved, they are simply the secretary's notes and have no official status. That said, if your organization has a rule )or an applicable statute) regarding distribution of the draft minutes, that rule would take precedence over RONR. In the absence of such a rule, you may share, opr not share, the draft with anyone you please.