Weldon Merritt

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.

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!