Gary Novosielski

I concur with @Rob Elsman. If the board styles itself as a superior body the the membership, you are operating under rules that are very different from those in RONR. That's not impossible, and it may be that condo associations are subject to state regulations that permit this, but I agree that suspicion is appropriate.

I don't see anything there that would contradict any of the answers given. Certainly nothing in in §49 is going to contradict anything in §61 ff. It does limit penalties for disorderly board members, but this is an allegation of bad conduct elsewhere. If you mean that a board cannot discipline its own members in such a case, that's probably true, but it's covered in 61:22, which requires referring the case to a committee or ultimately the general assembly for decision. ---------- Or were you referring to the last sentence of 49:15?

Once a quorum is lost the meeting may no longer conduct business. Recusal is not the problem--leaving the room is the problem. RONR does not provide for mandatory recusal. It does say this: If several members recuse themselves, is it possible that their personal or pecuniary interest is common to the other members? If so, the should-not would not apply. Note also, that RONR proscribes only voting--not remaining in the room or, for that matter, even debating the issue. So it occurs to me that your bylaws may contain rules that go far beyond those in RONR. But to answer your question, no the quorum requirement is not relaxed by the situation your describe.

RONR doesn't have anything to say about past presidents. If your bylaws make the immediate past president a board member then he's a board member. I presume that to be president one would have to be elected, but nobody gets elected to past president as such. What difference are you suggesting exists between a board member and an elected board member? It sounds like there's more to this story.

Ah. Thanx.

Is this a done deal already? Unless employee and board member broke into the secretary's house and altered the draft minutes, I'm not sure how that takes place. The secretary is free to include suggested changes, but is equally free not to. The draft that the secretary presents to the next meeting is what is before the board, not someone else's copy.

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 12th ed. Chapter XX, i.e., 20, has a very complete treatment of "best practice" when it comes to discipline. It's way more than can be quoted here, and this may be the perfect excuse to snag a copy. Here's some of it: Essentially "conduct unbecoming a Director" There is much more, but that should give you a taste.

In porcus oculo.

A Point of Order is an assertion that the rules of order are not being followed. Whenever a member notices that the rules are not being followed (unless minor) it is proper to raise a point of order, which calls the matter to the attention of the presiding officer. Once a point of order has been raised, the chair considers the claim, and then issues a ruling, saying that the point is either well taken, and whatever was done wrong is fixed, to the extent possible, or that the point is not well taken, which means the chair does not agree with the point being raised, and so no remedy is needed. The chair explains the reasons for the ruling in either case, and this is recorded in the minutes. But the chair is not the last word on the matter--the assembly is. If someone believes that the ruling of the chair was wrongly decided, they can raise an Appeal by saying "I appeal from the decision of the chair", and if someone seconds it, the question is decided by a vote of the assembly. Some abbreviated debate is usually allowed, and then the question is put "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?". It takes a majority of No votes to overrule the chair's decision.

Not only do they not forfeit anything, it is not proper to eliminate any candidates unless they voluntarily withdraw.. In order to vote, a member must be present, but if they leave, there is no law that says they can't be contacted, and if they do return, they have the right to vote. So everything about that is fine, with the exception of improperly declaring a candidate ineligible. So-called "runoff" elections are not permitted under the rules in RONR.

Raising a Point of Order is one of the motions that can be made without obtaining the floor. And when the chair recognizes the member, it is not for the purpose of making motions or speaking in debate, so I would say the member has not obtained the floor within the meaning described in 3:30.

Well, sure, but I was hoping the chair knew better than the parliamentarian. It springs eternal.

There is no usually no reason to record abstentions at all. If there is not a roll-call vote, then the identities of the voters are not recorded. If the vote was a voice vote, the minutes simply record that it was adopted (or rejected). If the vote a rising vote or show of hands, but not actually counted, then the same applies. If the vote was counted, then the vote count on each side is recorded and the fact that it was adopted or rejected. This would apply to a counted rising vote, counted show of hands, or a ballot vote. In the case of a ballot vote, the entire Tellers' Report is included in the minutes. (See RONR 12th ed. 45:37) If the vote was by roll call, the names of the voters, and how they voted is recorded. If there are abstentions, a sufficient number of those can be recorded to confirm that a quorum was present.

Yes, that's correct. The Parliamentarian was giving out incorrect information. That's grounds for an apology, or perhaps discipline, but it's not enough to overturn an election that was won by a clear majority.

Well, that is a majority, since more than half of the votes went to A. But if the bylaws said 50 % + 1, then you would need 18.5, and neither candidate would be elected, so you'd need a second ballot. But if they don't, then the election is complete.

Yes, I'm not sure that counts as permission to change a vote, but it accomplishes the same result.

When rising to a Point of Order, I don't believe the member is assigned the floor. The chair instructs the member to state the point of order but until the point and any Appeal are disposed of, the interrupted speaker still has the floor, and resumes speaking at that time, unless the parliamentary situation has substantially changed. This is like any situation when debate is underway, yet a member rises and addresses the chair. The chair does not assign the floor to the member, but instead asks, "For what purpose does the member seek recognition?" And if that purpose is to make a motion that may not interrupt a speaker, the chair will not "recognize", but will instruct the member to be seated. The only difference is that when a member rises to a Point of Order, the chair knows the member's intentions in advance. In the situation described, the chair erred in stating the motion for the Previous Question, as the member was never recognized for that purpose. Furthermore, I don't believe the chair must entertain an Appeal, since there are not two reasonable opinions that any breach of the rules occurred, except possibly by the member who interrupted.

It's not clear whether the vote you're talking about was a mail vote or an email vote, so I don't know if this rule applies or not, but that's the rule. If it was an email vote and your bylaws do not allow those, then the question is moot, since no matter what the vote tally was, the vote was null and void. If your bylaws allow voting by mail using secret ballots, that's quite different from voting by email, where secrecy is problematic. I can see that an argument might be made that in the case of a mail ballot vote where the outer envelopes are still sealed, a second vote received from one voter could be identified by the postmark, and used to replace the original envelope. But in general, the problem with changing ones secret vote is that there is no way to prove which way one voted to begin with, and the request could be used by an unscrupulous voter as a method of effectively casting two votes.

One might have wished for a more knowledgeable parliamentarian, but the fact that the threshold was misstated does not change the actual rule. What was the election tally? Would the less-than-one-vote difference have changed the result?

I read the cited question, as well as the quoted sentences in ROR that it refers to, and I still don't see the light. This appears to be a clear example of the minority protection clause in SDC #7 of Suspend the Rules [25:2]. And yes, a similar rule existed in ROR p. 87.

If a motion in favor of a No vote is defeated, it's becomes difficult to confirm that it was "all done correctly, of course." But what is certain is that the President/Chairman (Is that truly the title?) does not have the power to ignore the will of the membership if, in fact, all was done correctly, and presuming the rules in RONR apply (see disclaimer 👇.) Okay, maybe not so certain.

I've done a quick check of a dozen or so online dictionaries, and those that get past the metamorphic rock concept define slate as a list of people or names for nomination or election; a group of candidates of a political party all running for office; a group of people running together for election and the like. None of the definitions imply that a slate is elected by a single vote. And I did not see anything in the bylaws quoted that would lead me to believe that a slate is any different in this context. The board seems to be the only group who believes a single vote is in order, and I see nothing in the bylaws to support it.

It does not need to provide for its own suspension. Not only is it clearly in the nature of a rule of order, but it is contained in RONR, not in the bylaws. As such it can be suspended by a two-thirds vote. That would be sufficient to raise the threshold as high as two thirds. If it were desired to raise the threshold higher, say, three-fourths, then it would take a three-fourths vote to suspend the rule.

Of course not.

I'm assuming the chair called for those in favor, but never called for those opposed.