Rob Elsman

No, Tomm.

No, Tomm.

We are going around and around. Read my previous reply. At the next regularly scheduled meeting, introduce a motion or resolution initiating a disciplinary procedure.

I would have said RONR is not primarily intended for use by such assemblies. I know of one chamber of a state legislature that does, indeed, use RONR as its parliamentary authority, and there might be more. In addition, there is a whole universe of legislative assemblies of state agencies and local governments that, while not ordinary societies in the true sense, have regularly adopted RONR as their parliamentary authority.

Someone can draft a letter ordering the president to call the special meeting when and where to handle such and such business. One third of the members need to sign the letter. The letter is then sent to the president with a copy sent to the secretary for the correspondence file. The president then gives the secretary a call of the meeting, which the secretary copies and sends to all the members at the expense of the society. That's it.

I think you have answered your own question. A main motion that has been adopted by the board can be rescinded or modified by means of the motion, Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. This motion requires a majority vote if previous notice has been properly given; otherwise, it requires either a two-thirds vote or a vote of the majority of the entire membership.

The chair is derelict in her duty to call the special meeting, as the bylaws apparently require. A disciplinary procedure can be initiated by means of a main motion.

Point of Order is not the proper motion. If the object is to order the secretary to turn over relevant materials to the committee, a main motion is the proper motion to make. No one needs to march anywhere; the secretary will have the duty to respond to the adopted main motion and turn over what the committee needs to do its work.

I sense that these "options" are, in fact, different proposals, and there is no such thing as selecting a proposal "a la carte" in parliamentary law.

In fact, there may be a whole bunch of members who holler "Second!" at about the same time. 🙂

We know this much. Since, in most ordinary societies, the board does not elect its own members, we are safer to believe that the general membership is in the process of electing members of the board.

I did not intend to take a position contrary to Mr. Kapur's. I simply intended to say that there is a competent body that can decide the controversy that has been raised by the original poster, and that, absent contrary facts not available, the board is out-of-bounds when it interjects itself, since the board is not the body holding the election. As to the interpretation of the bylaw, I took no position, and I will not.

The deliberations have to do with what will be the content of the report. So, the proposed report, including any recommendations, is subject to debate and amendment by the committee members.

The general membership can, at the annual meeting, order the secretary to compile, print, and distribute an up-to-date copy of the bylaws to all the members at the society's expense no later than some reasonable date. The proper motion would be a main motion.

Non-members may be permitted to attend hearings, but attendance at the deliberations of the committee is restricted to committee members.

Mr. Kapur, I am making no such assumption. Without some delegation of authority, the board has no business interjecting itself into an election in the general membership assembly. So far, I do not see in the facts that the board has such a delegation of authority, and I'm betting my afternoon tea that there isn't any.

I guess this is going to be my best answer.

Mr. Kapur is obviously not a "textualist". A textualist would claim that anything that Informed Delivery says is not equivalent to what the bylaw demands--that the written petition be postmarked by March 15th. I think the competent body has the power to decide questions like this. However, unless there is something more to this, the executive board is not that "competent body" for an election held in the general membership assembly.

Perhaps you could sell it for a little profit. 😝 Seriously, I am uncertain that I know what is the actual problem. Is the electing assembly not able to obtain a quorum at its meetings?

So, exactly what does the board cite as its authority to pass judgment on the acceptability of submitted petitions? It doesn't come from RONR (12th ed.). Unless there is something more that I do not know, I am of the opinion that the board is out-of-bounds, here. This is not the board's election, so a good explanation is needed for the board's interjecting itself.

The rules in RONR (12th ed.) 48:2-6 deal with the contents of the minutes. In particular, 48:3 clarifies that additional information may be directed by the assembly to be entered on the minutes by majority vote (or unanimous consent, of course). Thus, no member can order such additional information to be so entered.

If the election is being held in the general membership assembly, the executive board has no authority to accept or reject nominations, postmarked or not.

They constituted an executive board by some means. How do they say they became board members if not by means of an election? Were they appointed by a governmental agency pursuant to some statutory authority?

I take it that item of business 322 was withdrawn by unanimous consent--right? If so, the item of business may come again before the board at the same meeting or any future meeting by way of a member making an appropriate main motion during the handling of new business. Having said that, a homeowner association's board almost always meets frequently enough not to observe the custom of adopting an agenda at the beginning of each meeting. If Robert's Rules is the board's parliamentary authority, the board already has an established order of business. The board should follow the standard order of business at its meetings instead of adopting an agenda.

I agree with Mr. Martin, but I would like to add that the authority of the manager to appoint "pools" of members from the fining committee also involves the contractual relationship between the association and the managing firm. What does the contract say about the managing firm appointing "pools" of committee members for the purpose of hearings? That, to me, is an essential point. So, I think an attorney familiar with contract law relating to homeowner associations in that state should be consulted.