Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

mikalac

Members
  • Content Count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Kansas

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON A QUESTION OF DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST. "No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances." We're back in RR should-land again. In the ordinary use of the word, it means we ought (or ought not) to do something, but we don't have to do it. How is this helpful to the reader looking for a rule by which to take action? A few threads ago, we argued inconclusively (at least to some members) about whether the Sec'y should give a notice on any question asked for it by a member. IMO, if RR can't use the words shall or shall not, which are clear, then it ought to refrain altogether in giving advice on a subject. Rules ought not be subject to interpretation.
  2. In answer to all 3 of the last posters, it is realistic to assume that none of the Officers know much about RR yet, so I think it is safest to just put in the extra section to avoid arguments between the requester and sec'y. (I think that the editors of RR-12 could make the subject clearer.)
  3. Now that email is used for notices the window could be changed from 10 to 60 to 10 to 20. In fact for the last 2 years the notices did go out in the latter window. Then I could strike out the last sentence.
  4. Suppose I put the following section into my bylaws Magnum Opus to define the requirement and prevent arguments over the matter: "Owner Right to Notice. The Secretary shall include in every notice of owner meetings all Owner requests for notice on questions involving Association purchases in excess of $10,000. The request must be made at least 15 calendar days prior to the meeting date. If required, the Secretary shall suggest to the requester changes to conform with bylaws language. If the request is rejected because it violates the Governing Documents, then the Secretary shall promptly inform the requester of the reason for the rejection. If notice was sent earlier than 15 days prior to the meeting date, then the Secretary shall issue an amended notice to the community to include the request." Note: Per current bylaws, notice of meeting must be sent between 10 and 60 days prior to the meeting date. Any problems with this addition?
  5. And I think that this reply is a cop out.
  6. I think we have a disagreement among the pundits. FYI, the bylaws say nothing on the subject.
  7. Then you and Kim agree with my original idea: The secretary must give notice to any member requesting it, even if not required by RR. Seems that some members here disagree with you both, but I'm on your side (naturally) and will ignore their advice.
  8. If I can sum up, there are questions as cited in RR for which the sec'y must give notice in the call, but with all other questions, he/she has the option to include or exclude them.
  9. Then you agree that the sec'y's "should" is not necessarily a "shall" and the pundit who said that earlier should be reduced in rank.
  10. I refer you to p. 122. Lines 1- 6 are examples of where notice must be given. Then look a the following line: "Accordingly, it is ordinarily desirable to give previous notice if there is a possibility of serious disagreement." That sentence seems to open up the possibility that any question that is contentious, and big buck questions will certainly be contentious, are important enough for the sec'y to have no option but to put them into the call.
  11. Can I assume from your more than ample reply that the answer to my abstract question is that does not violate I had in mind "substantial" questions that are complex and require lots of thought and discussion. Referring it to a committee delays it a year for the next annual meeting, which the member doesn't want to do. I realize that "substantial" would have to be defined, which might not be easy. Associating big bucks with the question might be a way to keeping out the insubstantial questions. Interesting that you say that the sec'y can decline such a request. We had a thread a while back regarding whether the sec'y's should regarding a member's request for notice (p.124 ll. 1-5). The pundit consensus in that thread was that should = shall; IOW, the sec'y must put a member's notice in the call. Now I'm not so sure.
  12. The emphasis in RR is when notice must be given at a member meeting, usually for important subjects, such as amending bylaws, etc. However, it would seem to me to be a good idea for a member to request that the Sec'y give notice on any question on which the member wants lots of thinking and discussion of the question by members before the meeting where time for thought and debate are limited. I don't see anywhere in RR where putting any question into the notice is prohibited. Everyone here OK with this idea? Note: Assume that the question is not frivolous and is in order.
  13. You've hit the proverbial nail. I raised the question because it was not clear in my mind that the works cited were referring to the time or the act. Now I know.
  14. What is the very last point in time when this Objection is in order? RR says this motion must be raised before any debate. p.267. In Brief say the same thing with different words. p.119. RR for Dummies says, "After discussion begins, it is too late..." p.176 PL says "but before it has been debated ..." p.154 Notes and Comments on Robert's Rules say, "the objection must be made before debate has begun" p.80. Now suppose that the main motion has been made, seconded, and stated by the chair, but there is an interlude of a few seconds where no member has begun to speak in debate on the main motion. If the objector during this silent interlude rises and makes the Objection, is it in order? Corollary question: The Standard code of Parliamentary Procedure does not include the Objection in its list of Incidental Motions, at least as far as I can see. What shall I conclude from this omission? It's not a part of their Rules or Order, or just not important enough to discuss it in that text? Thanks for your help.
×
×
  • Create New...