Richard Brown

Do you really believe that everybody who comes here for help really reads the small print below everyone’s signature line and that there is no need to ever tell people to check their own rules?? 😂🤣😃 BTW, For whatever it’s worth, the blurbs below the signature lines do not show up when reading posts on my iPhone.

First off, committees don’t usually keep formal minutes. Instead, the chairman usually keeps notes of the proceedings. However, if your committee does keep form minutes, I would think the secretary would be the person to retain them, unless they are passed on from committee secretary to committee secretary. See page 500 of RONR for more on committee minutes.

i’m still waiting for an explanation as to where the three reading requirement is spelled out. Is it in the bylaws? A special rule of order? Custom?

Where does the three readings procedure come from? Is it in your bylaws? Your special rules of order? Custom? Nothing in RONR requires three or even two readings. Someone makes a motion, the motion is seconded, the motion is debated and possibly amended, and a vote is taken. It normally all transpires at the same meeting. So, based on the rules in RONR, it certainly sounds like a legitimate motion. However, your three reading process throws a monkey wrench into it and I don’t think we can answer your question without knowing more about that.

Rather than answering with an unequivocal “No”, I would answer: “No, unless your rules require noting which members are present at meetings”. RONR has no such requirement.

The motion to adjourn fails if it does not receive a majority vote. Keep in mind, however, that the chair may cast the deciding vote. If this is a small board, the chair may always vote. The motion to adjourn fails if it does not receive a majority vote. Keep in mind, however, that the chair may cast the deciding vote. If this is a small board, the chair may always vote. if a motion to adjourn failed to receive a majority vote, the assembly may still adopt a motion to set an adjourned meeting. A minor quibble. An adjourned meeting is actually a new meeting in continuation of the current session, rather than a continuation of the same meeting. It is technically a separate meeting just as a session of a convention may be composed of several meetings.

I agree with this statement. I also agree would this statement. I disagree ... strongly ... with this statement. As I read the bylaws, they prohibit compensating directors for their service as directors. Service as a property manager or assistant property manager is completely different from service as a director. I think the provision is ambiguous and can be interpreted either way. Both interpretations are reasonable. It is ultimately, as Mr. Martin has stated, up to the assembly itself to interpret its own bylaws. I think it is a stretch for us in this forum to say that the president has violated the bylaws and should resign from one of the positions or to be subjected to disciplinary action. That is something for this organization itself to decide.

I concur with the opinion and advice of Dr. Kapur. I consider this organization to be an organized society that already exists and not a mass meeting for the purpose of creating one.

If a motion which was postponed to the next meeting is not reached before that next meeting adjourns, it becomes unfinished business at the following meeting. In other words, it stays alive. RONR p. 187 lines 11-15. Theoretically, it apparently can remain in that state for meeting after meeting. The motion to lay on the table, by contrast, dies if not taken up by the end of the following session. Page 214, lines 19-23.

While agreeing with Mr. Novosielski, I’m concerned about the selection of alternates. Does any authority exist for even having alternates on this committee? Edited to add: has anybody considered simply asking the non-participating member if he will resign from the committee so that a replacement can be selected?

For whatever it’s worth, I agree with the previous responses and especially with the responses by Atul Kapur. Ultimately, however, it is up to your organization to interpret it’s own bylaws.

Any links? I question whether the rule can be made non-suspendable as a special rule of order. Perhaps as a bylaw provision, , but I would like some authority on that as well.

I agree that such a provision can be adopted as a special rule of order, but, as such, wouldn't it be a rule that can be suspended by a two thirds vote just as with other special rules of order? Question: What if such a provision is included in the bylaws. Being in the nature of a rule of order, could that provision, if in the bylaws, be suspended even though included in the bylaws?

I suspect the answer to that question will be found in your city's own charter, ordinances or rules. In my experience, cities usually have very specific procedures for how a proposed ordinance gets from a planning commission (or other similar board or commission or committee) to the city council.

Guest Loreen, while you are quoting text, please quote verbatim the provision in the bylaws that provides for alternates to the nominating committee.

And I would agree.

Then you are not permitted to have alternates. However, depending upon how the nominating committee members were selected, it may be possible to replace one or more of them. How and by whom were the nominating committee members selected in the first place? Were they appointed by the president? Appointed by the board? Elected by the membership? what do your bylaws say about the method of selecting the members of the nominating committee?

If the parking lot improvements are outside the scope of a facility upgrade, then such a motion is out of order. If it is nonetheless adopted, it would have been adopted illegally and would be null and void as outside the scope of notice of the special meeting. However, the motion could be ratified at a subsequent meeting.See page 124 of RONR.

It appears to me that this condo association is playing fast and loose with its rules and is treating them more like guidelines rather than as the binding rules which they actually are. Ignoring them can get you into serious trouble. The board, for example, cannot simply "do away with" committees which are established in the bylaws, just as only CURRENT members of the board may vote as board members. People who might be board members next week or who were members last week but aren't members at this very moment are not entitled to vote as board members unless they are, at that very moment, actual board members. I understand the urge to do things "expeditiously", but as I said earlier, that can get you in serious trouble. BTW, exactly how are the committees being resumed "under the direction of the board of directors"? Do the bylaws grant the board any power over committees established in the bylaws? You need to read the bylaws carefully to determine whether (and to what extent) the board has any control over committees. Perhaps it does, perhaps it does not.

Well, the rule does say, pretty clearly, that by unanimous consent, the committee can consent to having its deliberations disclosed. " No one can make allusion in the assembly to what has occurred during the deliberations of the committee, however, unless it is by report of the committee or by unanimous consent" . Emphasis added. I can envision situations where, say, a nominating committee does not go into its rationale in its report, but authorizes the chairman or reporting member to provide the rationale for a particular nomination if requested by a member of the assembly. Nominating committee reports usually just provide a list of the nominees.

Guest Melvin, we ask that post your question by starting a new topic rather than tacking it onto a four year old thread.

First, we need a lot more information in order to try to help you. Second, your question is as much a legal question as it is a parliamentary one. We do not do legal here. You need to consult an attorney about that. For openers, we need to know more about the alleged ineligibility of the person elected as chairman to serve as chairman . What is the precise language of the bylaws which makes him ineligible to serve as chairman? Do the bylaws make him ineligible to serve, or only ineligible for nomination? There is a difference. Please quote the relevant bylaw language verbatim. Do not paraphrase, but quote the applicable provision verbatim. Edited to add: there is also the issue of whether the board has the authority to invalidate an election conducted by the general membership, but that is a separate (and very significant) issue.

I’m not looking at the book, but I believe the text says that the reasons can either be stated in the report or, with the unanimous consent of the committee, can be provided verbally. edited to add: therefore, I believe the committee can grant advance authorization for the reporting member to elaborate upon the report.

Yes. In fact, it is the recommended practice in RONR. Minutes should not wait until the next annual meeting for approval. Instead, the board or a committee should be authorized to approve the minutes. However, in order to do so, either the bylaws should authorize the procedure or a motion should be adopted at each annual meeting appointing a committee or authorizing the board to approve the minutes.

Thanks, George. I knew it was in there somewhere.