Richard Brown

On 5/11/2024 at 1:54 PM, Oezuwn said:

The full membership.  She got a majority of votes from 68 condo association owners at an annual meeting.

Then if the full membership elects the president at the annual membership meeting of your condo association, and if there is such dissatisfaction with her as president, I suggest a group get organized to see it that someone else is elected president at your next annual meeting.  It's called "politicking".  It works.  A few dedicated members can accomplish wonders.

On 5/11/2024 at 7:23 AM, Josh Martin said:

I am inclined to think holding the elections late violates the bylaws less than not holding them at all.

That’s only an inclination? 😀
But, yes, I absolutely agree!

On 5/11/2024 at 10:54 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Do I have to pay extra for an 'l'?

I suggest maybe we take bids!

My apologies! I just noticed that my cell phone misspelled your name. Perhaps it’s due to my southern accent.
 

On 5/10/2024 at 7:09 PM, Oezuwn said:

I wouldn’t put it past her to refuse approval of the Minutes till it reads the way she wants

This leads me to wonder if perhaps your minutes contain more information than is normally appropriate for minutes. The minutes should be merely a record of what was done, not what was said. You might want to review. sections 48:1 through 48:15 of RONR (12th Ed.) regarding the minutes, what they should contain, and the approval process. 

Even though you did not ask this specific question, it is perhaps worth mentioning that the president has no authority to direct the secretary as to how to do anything unless your own rules provide otherwise.
 

On 5/11/2024 at 10:38 AM, Joshua Katz said:

the question gives a scenario where both the bylaws and the articles do, and they conflict. The questioner would like to know which prevail in the conflict. And RONR answers that. 

I agree. I think the question is appropriate for this forum. I also agree with Mr. Esman that ultimately this is a legal determination, but RONR does address the OP’s question.

A non-disciplinary motion of censure, just like a motion to commend, may indeed be directed towards someone who is not a member of the organization.

Censure is a form of punishment that can be imposed as part of a disciplinary proceeding, but it is also possible to adopt a non-disciplinary motion of censure which can be applied to members and nonmembers. 

See section 61:2 and it’s footnote and also 12:20 in RONR (12th Ed.). 


 

On 5/9/2024 at 10:21 PM, Guest Malcolm said:

think he will want to control the discussion by remaining in the Chair's seat while it is discussed. Is that allowed under RR? (Controlling the discussion is one of the reasons for the removal).

No. Once the motion to remove the chair is made and seconded, and has been stated by the chair, he must relinquish the chair and turn it over to the vice chair or to someone else in accordance with section 43:29 of RONR (12th Ed.). It is not proper for the chair to preside over a motion to remove himself. 

On 5/9/2024 at 12:57 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Richard Brown said:

We could call for a Special Meeting to accomplish the election however at this point, it would not comply with the bylaw stated above.

I believe (actually, I'm rather certain!) that it was the original poster, not I, who said that!!!  Perhaps the "quote" feature isn't working properly!  I actually agree with you that holding the elections ASAP would come much closer to complying with the bylaws than to not hold the elections at all. 

On 5/9/2024 at 11:48 AM, Jim Anderson said:

What is the remedy for failing to hold the election of Officers at the bylaw specified meeting?

Bylaw: Section 2     The election of Officers shall be held at the regular May meeting of the Club.

My organization held it's regular May 2024 meeting last night (05/08/2024) however the election of Officers for the next fiscal year was missed and the election did not occur.

Installation of the new Officers is to take place at the regular June meeting (next month).

We could call for a Special Meeting to accomplish the election however at this point, it would not comply with the bylaw stated above.

 

The remedy is to hold the Elections as soon as possible. If the organization has frequent regular meetings, such as monthly, it can and should be done at the next meeting. It can also be done at a special meeting. That would not violate any rule in RONR and would instead comply with RONR

On 5/8/2024 at 10:03 AM, Guest Bobby said:

RONR 14:11 says "It is not in order, either through a subsidiary motion or a main motion, to postpone a class of business composed of several items or subjects, such as reports of officers or reports of committees; but each report can be postponed separately as it is announced or called for."

I'm not sure how to interpret that. In our case, the Platform Committee report contained several individual items. When the report was announced, a member moved to postpone the whole report. I can't tell whether 14:11 prohibits that, or allows it.

I agree. My answers were based n large part on 14:11 which says very clearly that “each report can be postponed separately as it is announced or called for“. It is referring specifically to reports of officers and reports of committees.  In this case, we are talking about a committee report.

On 5/7/2024 at 9:38 AM, Guest Richard Brown said:

It's just one of those "we've always done it that way" situations that we'd like to clear up!  Thank you for your response!

Just for the record, I don’t know who guest Richard Brown is, but it is not me. Or I, whichever is correct!

Edited to add: His answer, though, is likely correct!

On 5/7/2024 at 3:58 PM, Guest Guest Erin said:

Were any rules violated in this process?

I agree with JJ that no rules appear to have been broken.  The opportunity for debate is required, but debate itself is not required.  It also violates no rule for two members to agree that one of them will sponsor a bill, ordinance or motion and that the other one will second it.  In fact, that is rather common.  Any prohibition on that would have to be in your own rules or state law.

On 5/6/2024 at 8:33 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Agreeing with the above, I'd just add/emphasize that the Board is not present, as such, during meetings of the membership. The Board cannot make decisions when it is not meeting, and so cannot take any action at a membership meeting. 

I agree, and I have been wondering the entire time I was reading this thread why “the board“ is running or controlling a membership meeting. Unless this group has unusual bylaws, the board has no authority as a board at membership meetings. Board members are present just as ordinary Members and have no special standing as a “board“ a membership meeting. 

Guest Beeman, agreeing with JJ,  I’m curious as to why you think it might be necessary to elect a Chairman and Secretary pro tem if the regular Chairman and Secretary are present? Is there some reason why the regular Chairman and Secretary should not fulfill those roles?

On 5/6/2024 at 6:48 PM, Rob Elsman said:

My sense of it is that the subsidiary motion, Lay on the Table, is the best course of action. A majority vote is required for adoption. Once the report of the Fundraising Committee has been dealt with, the motion, Take from the Table, can bring the report of the Platform Committee back before the convention by majority vote.

I agree that using the motion to lay on the table would also be an appropriate method of handling it if the intent is to set aside the platform committee report temporarily in order to take up other business deemed more important and more pressing that should not be delayed. An item of business which has been laid on the table does not come back up automatically, but requires the adoption of a motion to “take from the table“ to be adopted by a majority vote in order to resume consideration of the matter.

The motion to lay on the table is covered in section 17 of RONR (12th Ed.). 

On 5/6/2024 at 10:32 PM, Wright Stuff said:

What is a "pending" report

The item of business (the committee report)  that is currently before the assembly and now being considered. 

On 5/6/2024 at 2:43 PM, rulesasker said:

Do the additional items actually change what was previously adopted, or are they merely additional actions? If the former, then the chairman of your committee should move to amend something previously adopted, and a 2/3s vote will be required. If the latter, then he could simply move to adopt them as a new motion, and only a majority is required (assuming something different is not required by something in your bylaws).

That’s not really correct. If previous notice is given of the motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted, only a majority vote is required. Without previous notice, a 2/3 vote is required or the vote of a majority of the entire membership.

see §35:2(7) (RONR 12th ed.). 

On 5/6/2024 at 2:42 PM, Atul Kapur said:

A quicker way to do it is to see if the number of Yes votes is at least twice the number of No votes. A 7-4 vote does not meet that threshold (7 is not at least 2x4) but an 8-3 vote does.

This is by far the easiest way to determine if something has met the 2/3 vote threshold! If there are twice as many yes votes as there are no votes, you’ve got a two-thirds vote. 

I agree mostly with the responses by Mssrs Elsman and Martin, but with a couple of caveats.

On 5/6/2024 at 9:59 AM, Rob Elsman said:

When the main motion to adopt the convention's agenda is pending, a subsidiary motion, Amend, can be adopted by majority vote.

That is true, assuming the organization does not have a formally established order of business for its conventions in its bylaws or convention rules of order.  Many organizations, especially political parties, do have such a formally adopted order of business.  As long as the proposed agenda does not change or deviate from that formal order of business (if there is one), the agenda can be adopted and amended prior to adoption by a majority vote.  However, if the agenda proposes to change or deviate from that order of business, the adoption of such an agenda would require a two-thirds vote rather than a majority vote.  41:61 (RONR 12th ed.).

On 5/6/2024 at 9:59 AM, Rob Elsman said:

After the presentation of the committee's report, a main motion to adopt the recommendations contained in the report can be postponed by majority vote.

This also is true, but the committee's report can be postponed by a majority vote at any time while it is pending and prior to its actual presentation, such as when the report is called up as the next order of business.  There is no need to wait until the report has been presented.  The OP told us the report consists of several separate items for consideration.

I agree with Mr. Martin's comments, with the caveat that although the agenda can be amended by a majority vote prior to being adopted, the adoption of an agenda that deviates from the established order of business (if there is one) would require a two-thirds vote as per 41:61 of RONR (12th ed.).

Edited to add:  It should probably be pointed out that if the report consists of several separate proposals for consideration, as we were told, it is also possible to postpone any of the specific proposals individually as they come up for consideration.  Such postponements would require a majority vote.

I agree with Mr. Martin.  The motion is a motion to amend (or to rescind) something previously adopted.

On 5/6/2024 at 9:26 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

For whatever it many be worth, I think that what rule level is required for livestreaming a meeting depends on the level of participation desired for the virtual attendees.

• If the virtual attendees are to be given full participation rights, inclosing voting, a bylaws rule would be required.
• If the virtual attendees are to be allowed to speak in debate, but not vote, a special rule of order (or a motion to suspend teh rules) would be sufficient.
• If the virtual attendees are to be allowed to observe, but not actively participate, a standing rule (or an ordinary motion at the beginning of the meeting) would be sufficient. Or even custom if the custom does not conflict with a written rule.

At least that's the way I see it. If anyone disagrees, I would be interested in your reasoning.

 

That's the way I see it, too, so I agree.

On 5/5/2024 at 3:30 PM, Atul Kapur said:

The other rationale for a signed ballot vs a roll call vote is that voters cannot be influenced by knowing how others have voted when they cast their own votes.

On 5/5/2024 at 8:43 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

Good point. I hadn't thought of that aspect.

Neither had I.  Glad Dr. Kapur made that point.

On 5/3/2024 at 2:40 PM, pattyhoa said:

Our HOA is voting on covennt issues.  we have 38 elibible members voting.  there needs to be 2/3 votes to pass an amendment to the covenants.

What is the proper count that we need to meet the 2/3 mark?

Please quote for us the EXACT VERBATIM provision in your bylaws regarding the vote requirement.

On 5/5/2024 at 11:48 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Perhaps, but how about voting by proxy?

I do not interpret that as being part of his question, but rather more of a statement that their rules allow voting by proxy. However, I do agree completely that voting by proxy must be permitted by state law or the bylaws.

On 5/5/2024 at 10:00 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Yes, such meetings must be authorized in your bylaws or by applicable law.

Perhaps I am mis-reading the post, but I think Guest James is talking about simply live-streaming (televising) church membership meetings via the internet so that other church members may WATCH the proceedings, but not participate in them.  Why would that need to be authorized in the bylaws or by law?  There is no prohibition against it in RONR that I am aware of.  I do agree, however, that the adoption of a motion or standing rule of some sort by the appropriate church governing body might be appropriate, but I am not convinced that it is necessary..... just probably advisable.  I also agree that some sort of authorization such as a standing rule or special rule of order would be advisable and maybe even necessary if the non-present members are going to actually participate in the meeting by speaking, debating, etc. The OP wasn't clear on that point, only that they would not be able to vote.