Gary Novosielski

Yes, but the President-Elect is not made an ex-officio member of anything, and so would have to be explicitly appointed to that committee.

Yes I agree.

The board claims that they are granted power by the Code of Conduct, but the language quoted just says violations can result in penalties, but does not empower anyone to impose them, if I'm reading that right.` In any event, the board's powers come from the bylaws, not a Code of Conduct presumably written by the board. The board can't write a document granting itself power it does not have. In any case, I think you will need a thorough understanding of how Points of Order and Appeals work. You have been encouraged to refer to those chapters in RONR, and it sounds like you will need to use them at the meeting. If you have any questions on them, please ask.

I understand your reasoning. But I also know that there have been occasions where the answer seemed clear based only on the information in the question, but on further inquiry proved to be more complex, or even the precise opposite, of what originally seemed clear.

I'm a little confuse about who the "we" is who voted previously, the board or the membership. And the fact that it was voted on previously may affect the results here. What was nature of the vote and did it narrowly pass or narrowly fail? And was the final vote held by the membership? A member of the body in which it was considered may, if it was adopted, move to amend or rescind the motion. There's a higher vote threshold to change something that already passed. (If it was originally rejected, then a new motion, or the same motion, can be reintroduced.) So I'm not certain it would be appropriate for the board to insert itself into that process. If the rules in RONR apply. it would not be in order for the board to make a motion that would, if adopted, conflict with a decision already made by the membership. But it's not clear that was the case. I think by reporting a certain motion to the membership, even without a recommendation, the board will be seen as tacitly supporting the reversal of the previous decision, since they could support the status quo by simply doing nothing.

Ehhh, what's the upside? I don't see how knowing would help him much.

So we know what the rules of this actual organization actually say?

RONR does not say much about proxies except to prohibit the, to the fullest extend allowed by law. But since your HOA regulations probably do allow for them, you will need to look elsewhere than RONR for the rules that apply.

If the rules in RONR apply, the board is elected by, and is subordinate to the membership. It has no power to rescind anything the membership has passed, and must obey instructions given to it by the membership. It's possible your bylaws give your board dictatorial powers, so you'll have to look that up. Boards have only such powers as are listed in the bylaws.

Are you confusing an Executive Board with "executive session"? If your bylaws require three days notice for board meetings, then that's what has to happen. During a meeting, the board can vote to "go into executive session" which just means that whatever happens during that portion of the meeting is to be kept secret. Which means that this can only take place at a regular or special meeting for which notice was given. In RONR, nothing needs to be said about the topic(s) to be discussed in executive session. But if your board is a publicly elected body, it is no doubt subject to Sunshine Laws in your state that restrict what subjects can be discussed in secret, and will probably require that the motion to enter "exec" states which of these approved subject areas will be discussed.

I presume he mostly abstained.

Nothing is permitted to interrupt voting. Yet someone apparently was recognized by the chair? Why? And after they were somehow allowed to make a motion, what happened next?

Yes, here's the clarification: That claim is clearly total rubbish.

Ouch.

And ya hadda go spoil it.

Such a motion would not be in order, as the time for reconsidering the vote has passed. What you are doing is simply renewing (re-making) the original (or similar) motion and handling it normally as a completely new item of business.

Ultimately it is up to your society to interpret the meaning of its own bylaws. However, if you're seeking an opinion: If the bylaws had provided that a single term was necessary in order to serve as president or vice president, there would be no question that the last year of that term would be complete before the candidate took office. If they provided that a single term was necessary in order to be elected to either office, it becomes muddier, since it depends on a precise hair splitting of when a term ends. But they provide that serving a single term is necessary to be nominated for either office. But before you conclude that that settles it, read on. The rule says at least "one term". Not one full term, or one complete term, but one term. Elsewhere in RONR (56:31) we find this rule: Granted that it says this applies to a provision for term limits, not eligibility for nomination, but then again RONR has no comparable advice for a provision like yours, so we don't know what it might say. That's why the ultimate decision is yours. I would also point out that even if you should decide that someone could not be nominated, there is nothing in the language you quoted to prevent such a person, if otherwise eligible, from being elected even if not nominated, or from serving if elected, such as by a write-in vote, which all ballots should provide sufficient space for.

Well, first it is important to understand that the right to withdraw a motion is not absolute: But, presuming that the maker still has the right to withdraw the motion or, if not, that the assembly grants leave to withdraw, then the motion is withdrawn, and the matter is disposed of. No further permission is required. Edited to add: For more details on the procedure for requesting permission to withdraw or modify a motion, see RONR (12th ed.) 33:11-19.

A two-thirds vote is required if that's what your rules say. RONR does not require that you obey the law--you are free to break it and suffer the legal consequences. Unless, that is, the federal law refers to a procedural matter, such as requiring or prohibiting proxies or mail votes, or similar parliamentary requirements. That type of rule overrides your bylaws, so you have to obey it even before you change your bylaws to be in compliance. Or even if you don't.

Well, he was wrong, but it's too late to do anything about it now. You'll need to make the motion again at a future meeting, and if the chair flubs the vote, be ready to raise a Point of Order at once. A majority vote has nothing to do with the quorum number or the total number of members. It just means more Yes votes than No votes. Abstentions do not count, but since your bylaws require that they be recorded, you have to do so.

Whatever the chair stated at the time the vote was taken is what was voted on. Whether it carried or not depends on how many votes it got. You say it passed, so it apparently carried. It makes sense, but it's not ideal. The chair should state the motions correctly, and the members should pay attention to make sure the chair isn't changing what the motions say. Edited to add: But just to be clear, in the situation you describe, the motion was adopted in the form stated by the chair when putting the question to a vote.

Yeah, that's a problem. They can't hold their first meeting until they hold their first meeting. It's impossible to comply with. Fortunately, there's a principle of interpretation that if there are two possible interpretations and one of them is absurd, use the other. Unfortunately, this one seems absurd no matter how you look at it. Perhaps it was meant to say until they are prepared to call their first meeting to order?

The general rule is that it is frivolous to make a motion that would, if passed, have the same effect as doing nothing. For example, a motion not to participate in an event, if passed, would mean the society would not participate. But if it failed, or if no motion at all was made, they still would not participate. So motions should generally be made in a positive form. Move that the request be granted, even if you oppose it, and then vote No.

This sounds like a rule in your bylaws, not in RONR, which has a different set of rules (see Chapter XX.)

Thanks, Josh. I added a sentence to my answer which may have been after your reply. I suggested that on the written motion submitted with multiple authors/cosponsors, a line explicitly saying Seconded by: be added, assuming the form allows for such flexibility. With respect to the text highlighted above, I submit that one reason the text did not say so is that there is no text in RONR anticipating multiple movers for a single motion. The word mover is not found in the plural form anywhere in the Work. The closest we get to that sort of event is a motion out of a committee. So I have to grant that the text does not say anything about this. But do you doubt for a moment that if there were a mention of the practice in some societies that signed motions in writing require the sponsorship of more than one member, that this would be one of the motions that do not require a second? Given the attention to detail exhibited by the authorship team in exempting from a required second any motion to grant a permission to another member, I have no such doubt. Admittedly this would not be an onerous requirement, but still... Anyway, as always, thanks for your views.