Gary Novosielski

I do believe that RONR says or implies that in more than one place, but it's always bothered me as it apparently is a way to introduce a main motion without a second—unless by "in the regular way" we mean waiting for a second.

Depending what you mean by "carry". With all the proper assumptions about divisibility satisfied, and the question properly divided, then Postpone Indefinitely would be immediately pending on both of the resulting motions. Well, I guess immediately pending on only one of them but also pending on the other.

The Standard Order of Business comprises the following headings: 1) Reading and Approval of Minutes 2) Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees 3) Reports of Special (Select or Ad Hoc) Committees 4) Special Orders 5) Unfinished Business and General Orders 6) New Business In organizations that have adopted RONR as their parliamentary authority, that hold their regular meetings as frequently as quarterly, and have not adopted a special order of business, this series of headings is their prescribed order of business. [see RONR (12th ed.) 41:5 ff.]

The option heading "Good of the Order" that typically occcurs just prior to adjournment would usually involve no decision-making, and so would generate no minutes entries, if the rules in RONR apply. In come societies, motions relating to discipline are made under this heading, and those would be included. Since the Board is being asked in the passive voice, it's hard to tell who is asking, and what relationship they hold in the scheme of things.

<deleted>

If small-board rules are in use, yes. Although there aren't many motions that require a vote. All sorts of things can happen to a motion, many of them not involving a vote.

It appears to me that all requests are accepted (i.e., considered) by the board, but that does not imply that they are automatically granted. Deciding whether to grant the request would presumably require a vote. A vote can have two outcomes, neither of which is disallowed. If the motion is rejected, the member is not excused from the fines.

I would assume that these county boards have their own legal counsel to advise them on drafting such resolutions if the members themselves do not have enough experience to do so.

No, that would be a breach of decorum. You can't go around accusing people. If you have suspicions that someone may be stealing, all you can do is move to form an investigative committee. See 63:9 for an example. The resolution merely refers to "allegations which, if true..." would justify discipline, but the resolution does not assert that the allegations are true. That can only be done by the report of that committee.

Since a resignation is a request to be excused from a duty, I don't think it is technically possible to complete a resignation before there has been an opportunity for the request to be granted or refused. There are situations (admittedly rare) where a resignation would not be accepted, such as a member attempting to resigning while still owing past dues.

Well, there's no question that your Board has the power to fill vacancies, but I'll leave it as an open question to others whether the Membership can instruct the Board whom to select. I think an argument could be made that this is possible but the timing would be a problem unless a Membership meeting could be called before the Board acts. In the usual course of business under RONR, a Membership can Rescind a decision of the Board, but only if the motion has not yet been carried out, and once the Board fills a vacancy, that action has been completed. It's just an idea. However from your bylaws, the Membership does have the power to remove officers. And of course there's always the normal election process for removing dead wood. If the membership seems unwilling to go that route, you have three choices: Give up; Vote with your feet; or Organize!

That looks like the applicable one, since this person was apparently not removed involuntarily. So the Board (not the president alone) has the right to fill the vacancy. Previous notice to all board members of intent to fill the seat is required in advance of that meeting. Chapter numbers are not used in citations. Section number and Paragraph number are used. So you're talking about 44:12, and the rules there apply to votes in any context. A majority is defined as more than half the votes cast, and since a tie (half) is not more than half, the motion fails, just like any motion that does not have majority support. The only exception is noted in the following paragraph 44:13, which notes that on Appeal votes, where the question is: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the decision of the assembly?, a majority in the negative is required to overrule the chair, so a tie vote would sustain the chair's ruling. But in this case just as with the others, the chair might well vote to create a tie, and tip the balance in his own favor, if that one vote could change the outcome. But in no situation does anyone ever get two votes.

Before you elect a new one, remember to accept the resignation of the present one.

Well there are a number of factors working here. First, what are the rules for filling vacancies? It is not necessaritly true that the president can simply decide on a method and use it. Second of all, e-mail votes are prohibited if the rules in RONR apply, unless authorized in your bylaws. Are they? Third, the rule about the president's vote would not apply in a small 6-person board where the president typically votes along with other members. A tie vote is simply a failure to reach a majority, so the question fails, just as if everyone voted No. The president (or anyone else for that matter) never gets two votes. In a large group, where the president's job is to appear impartial, he votes only whenever that one vote would make a difference in the outcome. This may mean voting to break a tie and pass the motion, voting to create a tie to defeat the motion, or any other situation where one more vote could affect the outcome, except of course that the president would not exercise this right if he were already happy with the outcome. But in your small board situation, the president may simply vote or abstain just as any other member may. Let's start with how vacancies are filled: What do you bylaws say about vacancies? If nothing, then what do they say about the powers of the board? And we'll work from there.

I think the State's Attorney's office did you a favor by writing the resolution for you. It's probably not their job. I'm a little confused how the first resolution got to the whole county board when it failed in committee. In any case RONR assumes the resolutions will be written by the members, possible with outside advice. If I interpret that message to you to mean that your committee must decide whether and what sort of ordinance is needed, will deliberate on the details until an agreement is reached, and then send the resulting resolution to the State's Attorney for review and cleanup, ensuring it meets proper legal form. It seems plausible to me. RONR does not deal specifically with governmental actions such as developing ordinances, but concentrates on the conduct of business and debate during meetings for whatever purpose the meeting might have. It has examples and instructions on the proper form of a Resolutions and Orders 10:13-24 (but not ordinances). It won't have much to say about the content of these, since that will depend on the organization that is meeting.

You laugh, but that would certainly account for it. 😏 I got the same error signing in to my broker this morning, also from Android OS, so maybe there's a timing thing going on there. Clicking again cured the problem.

Well, I thought they were. I am prepared to stand corrected. In any case it was not my intention to offend.

Non-voting members are, by definition, members without the right to vote—unless there is some language somewhere saying that non-voting members can vote (which I fear would not pass the absurdity test)

You say they allow proxy voting, but proxy voting requires an in-person meeting, where people in attendance, holding the proxies, cost those votes. If your bylaws contain no rules on counting votes, then the rules in RONR §45. VOTING PROCEDURE apply. It's way too long to quote here, but for ballot votes it uses a Tellers Committee appointed by the chair (usually) to collect and count the votes. The committee issues a full Tellers' Report of the tallies for each candidate and the number needed to elect, which they report at a meeting. Examples of the Tellers' Report are found at 45:37-38. The report is read again by the chair, who announces who is elected, and for which if any offices the election is still incomplete. The report is entered in full in the minutes.

We don't offer legal opinions here. Some of us are lawyers, some are not, but none of us are your lawyer. If the parliamentary rules in RONR apply, a husband and wife may serve in any positions they are duly elected to. The voters are free to consider situations such as the one you propose, and use them in their decision-making process. RONR only states that a member should not vote on a question in which he or she holds a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members, but members retain the right to do so even though they should not. And the advice applies to voting only—not to other actions.

Proxies are not valid in any scenario, if the rules in RONR apply.

The report of a nominating committee is not an "approved slate". It is a report of nominees for each of the offices under its consideration, all of which are elected individually. Normally that means one nominee per position, but they may nominate more than one unless the bylaws provideotherwise. Without seeing the exact text of the bylaws which you paraphrased above I don't know what the charge to the Nomination Committee in your organization might be, but your bylaws do supersede the rules in RONR..

See FAQ # 11: Must debate on a motion stop immediately as soon as any member calls the question? It is a fairly common misconception that, after debate has continued for some time, if any member shouts out “Question!” or “I call the question!” debate must immediately cease and the chair must put the pending question to a vote. This is simply not the case. Any member who wishes to force an end to debate must first obtain the floor by being duly recognized to speak by the chair, and must then move the Previous Question. Such a motion must be seconded, and then adopted by a two-thirds vote, or by unanimous consent. It is not in order to interrupt a speaker with cries of “Question” or “Call the Question,” and even if no one is speaking, it is still necessary to seek recognition. [RONR (12th ed.) 16:6–7; see also pp. 35–37 of RONR In Brief.]

We are not equipped to answer legal questions in this forum. RONR has no rules regarding the contents of e-mails except as they might relate to the confidentiality of proceedings in executive session. Legal questions should be directed to an attorney knowledgeable on Florida HOA law.

What RONR says is largely not a matter of opinion at all, since it is written in ink and English on the page. And since his name is on the cover of the Book, you may properly assume that @Dan Honemann has more than a passing familiarity with what RONR allows. But you seem to be adopting a view of what RONR says or appears to you to say, motivated more by what you want it to say than by what it actually says. I think you will find that among the regulars here, that is a deprecated method of interpretation.