Gary Novosielski

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?

On 3/5/2024 at 11:34 PM, Guest Carol Heiberger said:

A motion was made and seconded.  The discussion was somewhat chaotic, alternative or additional actions were suggested with some agreement.

However, there was no vote.  The meeting continued and was ultimately adjourned.

How is the motion re-entered for a vote?

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.

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

On 3/6/2024 at 5:27 PM, Guest Richard Guzzardi said:

Must a motion be made in a regular meeting, and a reason given, to go into Executive Session, or can you adjourn the meeting and say now we are in Executive Session?

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.

On 3/6/2024 at 5:52 PM, Guest Nick said:

Thanks for the quick replies!  

The meeting is a HOA meeting and the motion involves money ... meaning lots of emotions and "enthusiasm". 🙂 

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

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.
 

On 3/7/2024 at 10:19 AM, Guest James said:

The disorderly language was spoken while they were in the act of walking out, so neither had the floor.

The Bylaws say almost nothing about discipline, which is why I see this as a RONR question.  The only comment on discipline in the Bylaws is that the Board may dismiss a member for conduct adverse to the objectives of the society.  Nothing else related to discipline is addressed.

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.

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.

On 3/5/2024 at 12:48 PM, Dan Honemann said:

This response was based upon my belief that you were referring to the sentence with which I disagreed.

Yes, I was.   I was just looking for additional clarity, for which I am grateful.

On 3/5/2024 at 12:35 PM, Guest StarGuy said:

Hi - recently our cub went through the nomination process with a committee for upcoming elections of our officers.  A candidate was nominated, interviewed but didn't make the slate by the nominating committee.  After the slate was delivered a nomination from the floor was submitted for that person who didn't make the slate.  Is that allowed?  ROR just indicates Floor Nominations can be made but doesn't indicate if it can  be for a previously vetted candidate.  Should we change our bylaws to prevent this?  Just seems to be a backdoor approach to skip the nominating committee process

Has anyone else experienced this?

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.

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)

On 3/5/2024 at 12:12 PM, Bruce Lages said:

This seems to be addressed, at least for ASPA, in 48:15: "In such a case the content of the original minutes must not be altered, although it may be advisable for the secretary to make a marginal notation indicating the corrected text or referring to the minutes of the meeting at which the correction was adopted."

So there are differences, but the original material is still preserved in either case.

On 3/5/2024 at 11:37 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Delete it.

But I would be correct in assuming that the minutes as originally phrased would still be legible upon examination, yes?

I'm wondering if there is a distinction between a simple case of Amend Something Previously Adopted and the method when Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes is adopted.  I.e., is the original material still discernable in both cases?

On 3/5/2024 at 8:50 AM, Joshua Katz said:

Agreed. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that some person had set one.

Yes, the use of passive voice made that unclear.  If a deadline "was given" it helps to know who gave it, why, by what authority—things like that.

I was hasty in my earlier reply.  If the assembly itself set a deadline by adopting proper motions concerning the method of nomination, then even though this may vary from the default rules, it would be incorrect to say that the rules in RONR did not apply.  In that case I would describe the situation as one where the assembly "decided" on a deadline, rather than one where they were "given" a deadline, presumably by some person, say, or the board.

Presuming the ordinary case where the motion did not contain a proviso specifying a future effective date, it would take effect immediately upon adoption.

Approval of minutes does not constitute approval of the motion; that happened when the motion was adopted.  Approval of minutes only confirms that the minutes accurately record what happened.  It is not an opportunity to bite the apple a second time.

On 3/4/2024 at 7:51 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I agree with the first sentence, but not with the second.

How, then, would you amend it to read?

First, electronic ballots are not permitted unless authorized in your bylaws.

Second, "Disagree" is an unusual choice on a ballot.  Normally, for a ballot vote on a motion, the only choices are Yes and No.  In the case of an election ballot the choices would be the names of candidates with blank lines for write-in votes.

So I assume, on pure guesswork, that "Disagree" would be intended as a No vote.  If that's the case, then voting would not stop.  Instead, the vote would be counted as a No vote.

On 3/4/2024 at 6:42 PM, Guest Keva Wright Berry said:

In our association it appears that a candidate for an upcoming election may have violated one of our campaign rules. The elections committee wants  to disqualify, however, the president is not convinced that a violation has occurred. Can the president set aside the committee's vote and allow the candidate to participate?

Do you have any rule that would authorize any of this?  If so, what does it say?

On 3/4/2024 at 7:39 PM, acc said:

The committee in question was formed hastily and I am willing to let it stand but during this upcoming meeting I want to set parameters for its operation: goals and a due date, etc.

I'm not sure what this refers to.  You said that a member moved to form a committee.  Is that the committee in question?

Was this member a board member, or a general HOA member?

If a general member, this motion must have been made at a membership meeting, not a board meeting.  Is that the case?

If so, was this motion adopted?   Has the committee been appointed?  

There's really not enough information in your question to allow a full answer.

On 3/4/2024 at 8:24 PM, Guest Cassandra said:

Do you need a motion when the chair asks to vote on minutes by acclamation? 

No, you don't need a motion, although if someone makes one, no harm is done.

But there is no vote on the minutes.  There may be votes on corrections that are offered to the minutes if there is disagreement on the correction, but once all corrections (if any) are complete, the chair should simply declare that the minutes are approved.  A vote would be pointless because not approving the minutes is not an option.

On 3/4/2024 at 8:45 PM, Guest Susan said:

If a deadline was given for nominations what is roberts rule if a nomination is submitted after the deadline?

There's no rule on that because there are no deadlines for nominations in RONR.  In fact, nominations are in order even at the election meeting, if the rules in RONR apply.  But maybe they don't.  Are there rules in your bylaws about such things?  

What is your understanding of the meaning of the word deadline?

Well, there's a lot of information on elections in RONR, but no it does not assign this responsibility to the parliamentarian.  However if that's what your bylaws say, then that's the way it is.

The tellers are usually appointed by the president.  

On 3/3/2024 at 4:09 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The "proposed amendment" was actually the incidental main motion, Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted.  Thus, the amendment to it was a primary amendment, and the amendment to the amendment was a secondary amendment.

The confusion arises from the name of the motion, Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted.

Perhaps Rescind or Deform?  

On 3/3/2024 at 4:11 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Thank you, Mr. Novosielski, for the relief.

Avec plaisir.

On 3/3/2024 at 7:16 PM, Joshua Katz said:

I agree with my colleagues, but would note your organization can adopt a document retention policy at variance with RONR if it wishes. 

I agree with Mr. Katz that no known upper limit has as yet been discovered on the number of bad ideas, at variance with RONR, that an organization can adopt. 😜