Rob Elsman

It is not terribly uncommon for a member to make a motion that he is opposed to, if he is confident the motion will be rejected. He will do this to have the society go on record as opposing what the motion proposes.

Unless the bylaws specifically authorize absentee voting (in this case, by email), the vote is null and void. RONR (11th Ed.), p. 463. That crafty Mr. Martin beat me to the punch!

Yes, provided the council is not so large that the more formal procedures of a large assembly are required. For example, the council in my city has nine members. The rules for small boards could be implemented by a special rule of order, as Mr Martin has indicated.

I recommend each person purchase a copy of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief, 2nd ed. This book is specifically designed for educational needs, such as you describe. With this book, I think you can have your staff up and running in no time.

One option is to order the treasurer to make periodic reports to the executive board on the matters that are of concern. The order can be drafted carefully in such a way that the report presents the data necessary to ensure correct compliance with the relevant statutes and contracts while increasing the accountability of the treasurer to the landowners. These kinds of periodic reports are mentioned briefly in RONR (11th Ed.), p. 461.

I was shocked, but I was trying not to say anything.

The general rule with respect to the filling of vacancies on an executive board is given in RONR (11th Ed.), p.467. Because there seems to be a different and superseding rule in your organization's governing documents, what is said in RONR won't be of any help.

Unless an adopted main motion provides for its own "sunset" or is rescinded, it remains in force, even if some or all of the members have been replaced. RONR (11th Ed.), p. 111, footnote.

"Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion" is a very common and perfectly proper way to end a speech.

What did the society intend when the bylaw was adopted? Something must have been intended.

I thought it seemed clear that the meetings being spoken of were general membership meetings of the Association. The manager is most likely an employee of the management company, not the Association. The duties and responsibilities of the manager will likely be set out in the contract between the Association and the management company. At any rate, the manager is almost certainly not a voting member of the Association; therefore, what is said in RONR about the attendance and participation of non-members would apply, subject to any relevant terms of the contract.

A motion ordering the manager, who, after all, is not a voting member of the Association, to take her seat behind the voting members, can be adopted by majority vote. I think you will find that this, by itself, will restore the "balance of power" in the meeting. The president of the Association can than preside, as intended.

It's your constitution, you tell us. 🙂

A motion to amend bylaws (or other governing documents, by whatever name they are called) is taken up with the General Orders. RONR (11th Ed.), p. 596.

Speaking of which, I believe Parliamentary Law enters the public domain this year. You may soon find a complete copy for your own on Google Books. Maybe it's already there.

I don't understand why, either; but, the main motion was amendable.

I can tell you one thing for sure: you may not deal in personalities. You can very well plan on omitting any use of "underhanded", "deceit", and "bold face lying" in the meetings. Speaking in this way is the surest way to being ejected from the meeting.

I agree with Mr. Kapur with respect to the text of the motion. However, with respect to the "substance of the committee's report", RONR does not give us examples of reports of committees containing long, complex explanations. Unless the parent body has provided the committee with instructions to the contrary, the report should be kept brief, like the examples given. The reporting member should provide whatever "explanation" is necessary in debate, keeping in mind that the reporting member has preference in recognition to open the debate.

I understand the concept of what is being suggested, but both examples given are very familiar terms with a long history in America. The same is true of those picturesque military expressions that appear here and there, such as a motion "falling to the ground" like a soldier who has been shot on the battlefield. In all these cases, the average American reader of the book takes a draught of American parliamentary history. I'm in favor of preserving them.

There is nothing in RONR that guarantees a member some sort of confidentiality with respect to an abstention, per se. Rather, if a method of secret voting is used, only the member who abstains will know. On the other hand, if a method of recorded voting is used, the abstention will be recorded in the minutes as either "abstain" or "not present".

Mr. Honemann, I interpreted the original post to ask whether there is a procedure in RONR to combine two main motions that are pending simultaneously. I intended to answer in the negative. RONR would not have such a procedure, because proper parliamentary procedure, as codified in RONR, does not permit two main motions to be pending in the first place. I apologize for being so mystifying. Looking back, I can see that my response was too brief and incomplete to be fully illuminative.

It is a violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law for there to be two main motions pending simultaneously with which to perform a combination.

The form you have illustrated is not the proper form for a Point of Order.

Without reference to a committee, the board can let the item of business come up at each session and postpone it again to the next.

The proper motion is, "I move the Previous Question." And, yes, a second is required. The motion is undebatable, and it requires a two-thirds vote for adoption. A voice vote is not proper. Use a rising vote (counted or uncounted), instead.