Rev Ed

Sorry the site redirected me to this post when I was trying to post to another issue. I have corrected the issue. Sorry.

Well the issue is based on a rule found in the Constitution of the organization so it's up to the organization to decide how to deal with it. We cannot interpret the organization's Constitution, only membership can do that.

Why were these people elected if they will not even attend a meeting? If they did not want to do the job they should never have accepted election!

According to RONR, forever. Which is the best option - believe me, it's amazing how something from 25 or 30 years ago can suddenly become an issue - I have seen this firsthand in a couple of organization I belong to. How long you are required tokeep things tends to be specified in statute, but that's outside the scope of this forum, and keeping things forever is the better otion anyway.

Yes or no depending on what you mean: Yes, formal letters and correspondence are not included in the Minutes. you may mention that you received correspondence from X, Y, and Z. But that's it - and it would likely come up when the report of whoever handles correspondence makes their report. No, you don't need a meeting with Minutes to sed out correspondence, unless a specific motion is required. For example, should the organization decide to make a donation then a motion would be required to make the donation and the letter would go along with it. But a letter to say "Thanks for your correspondence" does not necessarily require a motion.

Depends on the situation: if it is a general membership meeting, or a Board meeting with a Board of more than about 13 members, no - except in limited situations. Such as when, under 'New Business', no one gets up to make a motion and the Chairman asks if there is any (other) New Business. If there is silence, the Chairman can assue a motion to adjourn. However, in a Committee meeting, or a small Board (of less than aprox. 13 members), the group can follow the relaxed rules of RONR and the Chairman can participate 100% like any other member.

The Board or the membership that's who. The group allowedto fill a vacancy holds a meeting and elects a new President and Vice President andl life continues on. No big issue.

Richard, wbut what if the By-laws are numbered - like By-law #1, By-law #2, By-law #3, etc. Say the organization has up to By-law #15 and now they want a new By-law to be numbered #10. My suggestion would be to pass a resolution to create a new By-law #10, and to renumber By-laws #10-15 as By-laws #11-16 all as one resolution. If the new By-law passes then everything is up to do. Otherwise, nothing changes.

Why not pass the By-law through a resolution that would include a statement similar to "That the new By-law will be numbered xx and the other By-laws numbering will be amended as required."

Yes. Or unanimous consent (i.e. no one objects.) But if people want to debate/discuss the motion then those members should demand a vote and vote against moving the previous question.

Ricahrd, I would concur I have some knowledge on HOAs/Condominiums. I have seen laws that require the Board to hold part of their meetings in a public venue (Sunshine laws) and/or where there must be an opportunity for public comments, but never about allowing an owner/member to enter into debate whenever he/she wishes. Any comments would have to be made during the public comment portion (whih may or may not limit what the member may speak about - either any subject, or only an issue on the Agenda.)

As Danielk pointed out, yousend in your report ad then the Committee is done. I would add that I would wait until after the superior body (i.e. the Board or the general membership) that you are reporting to has had a chance to review your report at its next meeting. The superior body could ask the Committee for more information on a specific part of the Report (or if the Report is lacking in some way, for a completely revised report.) I have seen a Committee 'report' consist only of recommendations without any other information. The Board then sent the Report back to the Committee for an explanation on each recmmendation.

And also, we have to remember that one person couldhold more than one position. I know in one small organization where for a year the President also acted as Treasurer because the person was the only one who had any training in accounting. So, in a situtaion like that, the President may have to answer financial questions such as "Do we have enough money to pay for the purchase of new furniture if the motion passes?" But there are also other times when the President/Chairman may need to answer 'questions' - for example, if a question is about what affects are caused by the passage or failing of a motion. Such as, "If we vote against the motion to censure a member that the member may continue to make comments on this issue?"

But Bruce, this is only a nine member Board, so no second would be required under the relaxed rules of RONR.

Daniel, thanks for the quote. It made me think though: I wonder how often people assume that the person making the reportshould preside for that portion of the meeting out of not understanding RONR ad the role of the presiding officer. As the Chairman normally sits in a position to see everyoe in the room, it can appear that he/she is the one 'running' the meeting and is the one who is supposed to 'respond' to questions which would not usually be the case.

Neither do I.

Of course, anything else that was done, such as a recess to make inquiries in order to attempt to get quorum.

Nothing formal would be required. The Minutes might reflect that the President handed the Chair over to the Vice Presidet, and then mention after the motion is dealt with that the President returned to the Chair. Then again, if you are using the relaxed rules for a small Board (under 13 members), then the Chairman/President can make motions, enter into debate, vote, etc. just like any other meeting.

Or the meeting location is unavailable due to fire, damage, etc.

Of course, there is the obvious question. If both meetings have overlapping membership, is there sufficient attendance at both for quorum to be met? If everyone attends the first meeting, then perhaps enough people are mississng from the second meeting to make sure quorum is not met. Just thinking 'out loud.'

Richard, this is what I am thinking - it could an inexperienced Chairman who does not maintain control of the meeting. But, if the member, even after repeated corrections, continues to be an issue at meetings, the Board could look at Chapter XX of RONR or the By-laws about discipline. The member could be disciplined if the Board* feels that it is intentional - especially after repeated attempts to 'correct' the issue. Discipline could include being named in the Minutes, to a suspension, and up to removal from office (either as a member of the Board, or as a member of the Board and the organization.) *For the experienced RONR members here: It is up to the the Board to follow the disciplinary measures found in RONR or the By-laws of the organization, so they may or may not have a lot of power in what occurs.

At the end oif the day, you need to clarify 'justified cause' - but the first meeting is in the grey arey to me. The member was home and said he would come, but was absent. But the member just got home from a trip, which normally could count as a reason not to attend. I'd personally give the member the benefit on that one - the next to meetings are more clear from what you have told me. But this is up tho the Board to decide, not me.

Simple, there were 7 directors. Now there are 6. 3 out of the 6 do not like the President. Of course, if they came out to meetings and voted against anything the President wanted to do, then there would be a deadlocked Board. So there is a benefit to attending. Several organizations that I know of have a clause in the By-laws stating that missing 3 or more meetings in one calendar year without cause (i.e. illness or work obligations) is sufficient for the Board to declare the position vacant. The Board, if it has the power to do so, could amend the By-laws - or ask the general membership - to amend the By-laws to allow for this.

Based on the information provided, yes. If the President appoints the members and Chairmen of all Committees then the President can appoint himself/herself as a member, or as a Chairman, of any Committee. Any exceptions would have to be found in the By-law or motion giving the President the power to appoint members and Chairmen to Committees.

Josh, we don't know the details. That's the problem. Is the OP using the term motion properly for example? And if so, what is the motion about? Normally, I'd agree with you 100%, but we don't have any details and I do not want to say that there is absolutely no issue when there may be - even if you or I would dismiss it, I would want to at least mention it. P.S. What I am trying to get at is if the spouse puts down a motion to do something that would benefit the couple or one of their relatives - or if what the OP means is that the spouse wants to run for office. In the former, the issue may be something where the assembly may wish to object to (i.e. why wouldn't the member want the vote to come out in favour of his/her relatives), and in the latter may constitute the same thing - the member may appear to be helping the spouse to get elected. While neither may be the case, the assembly may want to have someone else act as a scrutineer if for no other reason than for appearance - if there ends up being an issue with the final count that someone objects to (I have seen this occur) then the assembly may want to keep up the appearance of neutrality.