Gary Novosielski

Although it's true that RONR has no rule against bringing up new business under New business, it is possible (I have no idea if it's true, particularly in your state) that statutes or admin code may require HoAs to publish an agenda, and to stick to those topics. So it may be necessary to broaden your research beyond the pages of RONR.

I agree. The funds (or lack thereof) available might be a subject of debate on the motion, but would not, per se, be a reason to rule the motion out of order. Someone in favor might announce that if the motion passes, she will offer other motions to cut spending in other areas, or to arrange for a loan or for a source of additional income.

That's a reasonable conclusion--one which I noted was a possibility. But nothing I'd seen prior to that clearly indicated to whom the bylaws committee reports, or who could refer things to the committee. Those two are usually the same body.

If I understand what went on, a board member moved a proposed bylaws amendment, and the board referred it to committee. When the committee reports the proposal back to the board, with or without recommendations for changes, it is the same item of business as when it was referred. You seem to be treating it as two separate motions. The changes if any would be treated as first- or second-level amendments to the original proposal. The motion(s) would be fully debatable once they are before the board. But I'm not sure from the description how the motion would ultimately be disposed of. It appears to have ended up before the general membership, but it's not clear to me how that happened. Did the board subsequently report the motion to the general membership, or does the committee report to the membership?

PDF may raise no worries, but the Kindle format of RONR and RONRIB, which were available for a small window of time, is difficult to use because it does not use page and line numbers that correspond to the print editions of those works. It is my understanding that extensions made to the Kindle format now make it more suitable for reference works such as RONR. But this is the first rumor I've heard that it might happen. One lives in hope.

And it would not be out of place to move to censure the president for this improper overreach--just to let him know that the membership has its eye on him, and will not tolerate improper power grabs. RONR is quite explicit in its recommendation that the current president should not have a role in the process of choosing nominees.

What happens to the money probably depends on the exact wording of §501(c)3, and would be a question for your lawyer or tax accountant, as it's not a parliamentary question. But the loss of some elected members doesn't constitute dissolution of the organization. That would be a separate question, tantamount to rescinding the bylaws, and therefore following the rules for amending the bylaws. It's not clear what you mean by "the membership declined." Could you clarify that?

Presumably an ordinary main motion.

The nominating committee's job is normally over when its report of nominees has been presented to the membership. The job of counting votes and reporting the results to the chair is normally done by a tellers' committee, but if your rules say otherwise, that's okay. But the tellers' committee reports the results of the count, i.e., number of ballots, number of votes for each candidate, number (majority) required to elect, number of invalid ballots, if any. It does not say who won. It reads its report at a meeting, and hands it to the chair, who reads it again and who then declares the winner. There does not need to be a vote to certify the winner, unless there is some objection or point of order regarding the election which needs to be decided by the assembly. Ordinarily, when the result is announced by the chair, that's the end of it.

I had to read it twice, too. And I concur that Mr. Honemann was not arguing that he was wrong, but rather that he was not.

The motion need not come before the assembly. The member can simply not make the motion. Yes, since the notice was given, anyone else can move its adoption. <null> The best solution is not to move it. I don't fully understand why you'd need an agenda, but if you have one and the motion is on it, you can move to delete it, or perhaps the "mover" could ask unanimous consent that it be removed. Even if it's left on there, though, when it comes up, the member can't be forced to move it. He can "withdraw" it at that time, and since it was never placed before the assembly, he can do this unilaterally. Withdraw may not be the proper term, but nobody will notice.

For the most part, No. Some committees keep minutes, or notes in the nature of minutes, but there is no requirement to do so, and if done no requirement to submit them to anyone else. Communication between a committee and its parent body is accomplished via the committee's Report, approved by a majority of its members.

Not Ha. Call the police. Adjourning or rescheduling the meeting is allowing the disruptive member to succeed in his disruption. I seem to recall that RONR at some point authorized the chair to appoint a few larger members to assist the disruptive member in his departure, but I'm not sure this language survives in the current version. The police are better equipped and trained to remove trespassers.

Of which there are chapters all around the globe.

Yes, the scope of the notice is a critical consideration especially for bylaws amendments. But if changes are offered that are clearly within the scope of the original notice, then there is little doubt that these would be in order. However, here you're referring to changes to the motion before it is moved, so the question becomes, is the motion that was made actually the motion for which notice was given? I suspect that the answer to this question may depend closely on the exact contents of the motion. The best way to avoid the issue, of course, is to move the motion exactly as noticed, and then offer amendments to it. But I think if the mover made changes to the motion that were within the scope of the original motion notice, it could be argued that the motion was in order. Those who dispute this would be free to raise a Point of Order, subject to Appeal, which would allow the particulars of the case to be considered. Stay tuned for other opinions.