Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Gary Novosielski

Members
  • Posts

    15,334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gary Novosielski

  1. So you've "decided" to violate your own rules? Or you don't believe this would?
  2. Then I would refer you to @Josh Martin's reply, which applies to your situation. RONR establishes no such "right". Ask the insistent member what rule, regulation, bylaw, or custom does she believe grants her this "right". Who knows, maybe she'll come up with something, but it's hard to recommend where to look when you don't even know whether the thing you're looking for exists.
  3. It's not clear what you mean by "filings". What sort of things are included in that term? Are you referring to minutes, or some other kind of records?
  4. I think it makes more sense to elect the delegates first and the alternates on a subsequent ballot. But if that requires a bylaws amendment in your case, then you'll have to do that first.
  5. No, that's rubbish. Whether you actually have a consent agenda or not, and that seems to be in doubt, or whether somebody just moves to approve the amendments en bloc, members do not have to ask to consider the items separately. Any single member may demand that one or more items be considered separately. Read up on Point of Order and Appeal (§§23-24); it sounds like you'll need them. Your chair is assuming to herself powers that do not exist, unless your bylaws are atypical.
  6. Division by zero can't be cured by simply waiting 'til later. ⚠️
  7. No, and even if it did, you could craft your bylaws to say something different. I wouldn't recommend attendance requirements, but that's not up to me.
  8. To determine which, consult 21:7—Effect of Adjournment on Pending Business or on an Uncompleted Order of Business. Spoiler alert: Barring edge cases introduced by quarterly intervals, ending terms, and the like, the answer is often Yes.
  9. That's my question as well. Since 15:2 is the rule that limits the limiting, that's the rule that should be suspended, it seems to me. For completeness, I'd offer to add just four words to Mr. Gerber's suggestion:
  10. Through their periodic reports to their parent body. The report is adopted by a majority vote in committee, and contains whatever the committee wishes the body to which it reports to be aware of. The actual deliberations that took place in the committee may not be raised in debate on any recommended motions that the report might contain, unless necessary details of those deliberations were intentionally included in the report.
  11. Okay, but amendments aren't mentioned there (in my copy). 🙃
  12. Your RONR must be the director's cut. My 15:2 only has two ways that debate can be limited. 🙁
  13. Well, then it sounds like the committee has been properly established and appointed, at least if the rules in RONR apply. But I can't say how this comports with the laws concerning HOAs. In any case, if this is a valid committee, it reports to the membership, not the board, so bear that in mind going forward. What, if anything was this committee charged with doing, when it was created?
  14. If the motion was still pending when the meeting adjourned, then I agree with @Josh Martin's response above. If not, and the meeting simply moved on to other matters, without even laying the motion on the table, then that's sloppy process. There is no defined category for motions that simply fade out with no actual disposition of any kind. I suppose the best course of action is to simply make the motion again at the next meeting.
  15. I think it would be, but stay tuned for possible dissenting opinions. I would stick to reminding everybody not anyone by name. It would be a stronger admonishment if the board had agreed to censure those persons by name at the prior meeting, since this would appear in the minutes being approved at the current meeting
  16. No, if you adjourn the meeting, the meeting ends, and you are not in session at all. See RONR 9:24, which says in part: A meeting enters into executive session only when required by rule or established custom, or upon the adoption of a motion to do so. A motion to go into (or out of) executive session is a question of privilege (19), and is adopted by a majority vote. The motion need not include a reason unless your own rules require it or a regulation applicable to organizations of your type (e.g. a Sunshine Law that applies to public bodies) does.
  17. This sounds like the type of motion which would benefit most from orderly debate—assuming the chair is knowledgeable, experienced, and up to the task. Attempting to stifle debate will not serve to diminish emotions; it will just prevent a healthy outlet for them. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. " —John F. Kennedy
  18. See RONR 10:9, which says, in part: A member making a motion embodying something that has just been said by the chair or another member in informal consultation during a meeting should avoid statements such as “I so move,” and should himself recite the complete motion that he offers. The chair should not treat this as a motion until the exact language of what is being moved has been determined, and recorded by the secretary. Recognizing "so moved" as a motion does not accomplish this. Exactly what was moved? Besides, to make a motion, a member first seeks recognition. If a member simply calls out "so moved," interrupting someone who had the floor, the chair should treat it the same as any other improper interruption. If the member says "so moved" at a time when it would proper to seek recognition, the chair, upon hearing "so moved" from Ms. A, can simply say, "Ms. A is recognized," possibly prompting the member by adding "You may state your motion," if it appears necessary. Once the language of the motion is clear, and it is seconded, the handling of the motion can proceed normally.
  19. Agreeing with @Josh Martin, I would add one point. It is possible for the board to adopt a motion of Censure [61:2n1] against the offenders without going through a whole formal discipline process. It has no punitive effect other than expressing the displeasure of the body, but it does serve as a warning that a repetition of this bad behavior will be unwelcome.
  20. These seem more like legal problems than questions of parliamentary procedure. HOA violations are often handled in accordance with state regulations rather than the default discipline procedures in RONR, so I don't think we'll have definitive answers here, but watch this space. Legal questions should be addressed to your lawyer.
  21. Yes, I was. I was just looking for additional clarity, for which I am grateful.
  22. Yes any candidate eligible for election can be nominated. The "backdoor approach" is in reality a safety valve to prevent a nominating committee from locking eligible candidates out of the process. The committee makes recommendations, it doesn't dictate for whom voters may or may not vote. The committee's function is to be an advisor, not a gatekeeper. Also, bear in mind that ballots should always contain space for write-in votes. Any eligible person may be voted for even if not nominated either by the committee, or from the floor.
  23. No. See: 46:32 Whichever one of the preceding methods of election is used, if any office remains unfilled after the first ballot, the balloting is repeated for that office as many times as necessary to obtain a majority vote for a single candidate. When repeated balloting for an office is necessary, individuals are never removed from candidacy on the next ballot unless they voluntarily withdraw—which they are not obligated to do.¹ The candidate in lowest place may turn out to be a “dark horse” on whom all factions may prefer to agree. __________ ¹ An organization could suspend the rules, or adopt a special rule of order, so that the nominee with the fewest votes is dropped from the list of nominees for succeeding ballots in the expectation that voters will then confine their choice to the remaining nominees. Only a bylaws provision, however, could make the dropped nominee ineligible for election so as to render illegal any subsequent votes cast for that nominee. (See 46:2)
  24. So there are differences, but the original material is still preserved in either case.
×
×
  • Create New...