Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Gary Novosielski

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gary Novosielski

  1. Here is an example of a citation to the 12th Ed. RONR (12th ed.) 2:15, 56:49,56:66 Can anyone shed light on this format?
  2. First, it's not typical for committees to keep minutes. Usually, the committee expresses its actions through its report(s). But presuming your committee, by rule or custom, keeps minutes, and for any assembly that does, the following procedure applies. No motion is required to approve the minutes (though not strictly improper). When reading and approval is the pending item of business, the chair simply announces that the Secretary will read the minutes. If copies of the draft minutes have been supplied to all members, reading may be waived as long as no member demands it. The chair asks if there are any corrections to the minutes. If there any, they are usually handled by unanimous consent, but if there is objection, then the correction is handled like an amendment to the draft minutes and decided by majority vote. If there are no (further) corrections to the minutes, the chair announces that the minutes are approved (as read/printed/corrected) No vote is taken on final approval. The only way to object to the approval of the minutes is to offer a correction. Non-approval is not an option. As you can see, there is no need to move or second approval, and any member may participate fully in the approval process whether or not they were present at the meeting in question. [This response was based upon RONR 11th Ed.]
  3. I'm not expecting mine till Tuesday.
  4. Is the person being questioned a member of the assembly that is meeting?
  5. Where is the presiding officer when all this is going on? The president should be the first line of defense against an unruly member. If the chair isn't doing a proper job, and the offending members starts mouthing off, a member should instantly raise a point of order that the meeting is not in order. That should have the effect of causing the chair to start doing his job, and if it happens again, raise a point of order again. If it happens a third time, I would move that the member be removed from the meeting. But that's only valid for the remainder of that meeting.
  6. The assembly has the right to adopt such a rule, but I fail to see how it could possibly be enforced. If I'm at my computer and I take a screenshot of what's on my screen, nobody will know.
  7. From what I can tell reading this thread, that we are not in fact talking about a consent calendar at all, but a simple case of a unanimous consent request, which is something entirely different.
  8. The contents of the minutes, as well as the procedures for approving them, are contained in §48 MINUTES AND REPORTS OF OFFICERS, RONR 11th ed.
  9. The minutes of the meeting should record what was done at the meeting, such as postponing this motion until the next regular meeting. It should also include anything read into the record, as long as the assembly consented to this.
  10. I agree that's the likely meaning. To say that special meetings may be called by the president or others gives them that authority, if and when special meetings are needed. To say that special meetings must be called by the president et al., appears to suggest that they are required to be called even if there is no need for them. Under the current language, if four board members wish to call a meeting, they would request (presumably of the secretary, not the president) that a call be sent, which it presumably would be, upon request. And once called, the meeting must be held.
  11. Quite right. My take on this situation as presented was that there was one member who loved to be the one who moved to adjourn (I know one like this, although he seldom moved anything else) and that this often interfered with members who wished to introduce new business. There's no question that when a majority wishes to adjourn, that's that. But in this situation I can imagine that the assembly would vote Aye as a matter of habit, without considering an alternative. I did not mean to suggest that the chair should string things out in the face of a real desire to go home, just to provide a quick way to check, and to gently guide the member who is too quick on the trigger. Thanks for the clarification.
  12. I didn't say it was logical, but from all I can tell, it is the rule. I've checked to see if there is more discussion in PL but it doesn't seem to be addressed there at all.
  13. If advance absentee voting is used, as appears to be the case here, it should be easy to identify the voter, even though that vote would remain secret. This is necessary to allow the verification that a ballot received was actually from a valid member eligible to vote, and that the ballot is not a duplicate. In my state , for public elections a two-envelope system is used. The outer envelope contains a signature and identifying information that allows the vote to be checked against the rolls, and that member checked off as having voted once. Illegal votes are removed at that time. When it is time for the votes to be counted, the outer envelopes containing valid ballots are opened and the inner envelopes, which contain no identifying information, are placed in a pile, afterward they are opened for counting. This satisfies the key requirements of a ballot vote: Ensuring that the ballot is a valid one from an eligible voter. Ensuring that no member votes more than once Ensuring that the vote of each member is secret.
  14. Whether amended or not, the original mover may not speak against it, but may vote against it. However, seeking leave to withdraw a motion is a clear indication that the mover does not support it in its current form.
  15. In the case of a city council that's quite correct, since it is presumably a meeting of the city council. In the case of a meeting of the board at which general members may attend, it's also correct, because it is a meeting of the board. But at a meeting of the membership, the membership decides who sits where. The fact that hundreds of HOAs do it "wrong" may simply mean that the membership decided that was okay. Nevertheless, the membership may change its mind (or discover this fact) at any time, and when a board begins to overstep its bounds, that's usually a good time.
  16. And was this before or after the size of the board was reduced, or was the number, say, reduced from seven to five, in compliance with this rule, or in some other way. I guess what I am asking is how many board positions were there before and after the change, and what are you proposing to change that to for the future?
  17. I agree as well. I look at it this way: If the board is authorized to fill a vacancy, then it is authorized to accept the resignation which caused the vacancy. When a president's resignation is accepted no vacancy occurs in the office of the president. A vacancy immediately occurs in the office of vice president. If the board is authorized to fill the VP vacancy, then it is authorized to accept the resignation that caused it.
  18. It seems to me that the question centers on "ensuring that no members wish to make further nomination". I may be reading a lot into this, but I wonder how I as a member could be called upon to make (or refrain from making) further nominations if I am not fully informed on what the existing nominations are." I agree with my colleagues who have pointed out that the assembly itself is the ultimate judge of interpretation. I would only add one additional quote from RONR that may (or may not) be relevant to this situation. It sounds like you do not use a nominating committee, as such, but it sounds like your bylaws do attempt to embody the idea that, upon learning the nominations made, the chair must then check for further nominations. It clearly says that this may be done while the election is pending, or earlier, which seems to allow for written (i.e., email) notice (at least for those who have agreed to receive notice by email.) But it does appear that the additional nominations are presumed to be made with full knowledge of who has already been nominated. It seems to me that in order to make a reasonable decision on whether to nominate someone, a member would need to know whether the list of nominees is sufficient to allow the election of a good candidate. So I would expect that if this were done by email, it would go beyond a simple reminder of a deadline, and rather contain a clear request for additional names, given the list as it stands at that point. But I stress again that I am not a member of your organization, and am unfamiliar with you customs and rules taken as a whole. Your assembly is the final judge of interpretations.
  19. I think that would take more than one amendment. The provision making a rule suspendible should, in my view, be included with the rule itself, not with a separate list. In that way, people looking up rules in the bylaws do not have to check two separate places for every rule they check. Good luck with your implementation. Check back with us as needed..
  20. That's a good question. I don't know of anything in RONR that speaks directly to the issue, except to say that the assembly decides all questions about the validity of any questionable ballots. This may be a situation where the question should be put to the assembly to decide. I think this is a question on which people can, in good faith, disagree, absent some rule or custom. Personally I tend to think the vote should not be counted. RONR provides that before the result is announced a member has the right to change his vote. A case could be made that by resigning, the ex-member effectively requested that his vote be changed to an abstention.
  21. Also, I'd be particularly suspicious of the board (and especially individual members of the board) changing anything or meddling in the operation of a membership meeting, which is not their meeting to meddle in. There could be rules in your bylaws that permit this, but based on what you've told us, there are board members who are not above doing things with no apparent authority.
  22. I saw a recent story regarding mail-in voting in public elections. Ballots of people who had died after mailing their ballots but before election day were removed, presumably in accordance with state law. Those intent on lobbying against absentee voting spread the story that x-hundred dead people had voted, and this was evidence of fraud. The truth was that the votes were legally cast, and the problem ballots were detected and removed. No fraud occurred.
  23. I hope we're not talking about a provision that says any rule in the bylaws can be suspended. You should carefully consider which specific rules you want to be able to suspend, spend a lot of time time considering how that could be abused by someone with bad intent, decide what the vote threshold should be, and include that provision in that specific rule. Rinse, repeat for other rules, if any. The Catch-22 with quorum is that even if it's suspendible, you can't take a vote to suspend it until you have already met it. I'd advise against allowing suspension. If you're afraid it's too high, lower it by amending the bylaws and then use that number.
  24. Well, in the example I suggested, that would not change anything, as long as the chairman was able to get out his question about further business. When the member jumped up and said "Mr. Chairman!", the chair would still say "For what purpose..." and we're back in the sequence. The hope is that Mr. B will first learn not to shout out motions, and ultimately learn that it is bad form to attempt to adjourn before other members have a fair shot at introducing new business under New Business.
  • Create New...