Richard Brown

You might note that Jefferson's Manual was published a full 75 years before the first edition of Henry Robert's manual. fwiw, I don't think I have ever seen a manual that suggests reversing the order of precedence between the motion to commit and the motion to postpone to a definite time. I wasn't referring to your own name (or initials.... I had not given much thought to whether it's a name or initials). I see now that your name is apparently Stephen V but you have switched to using the name "Guest saa". I was referring to the fact that I believed you were consistently (up until your last two posts) referring to of us by just one initial, such as your reference to Joshua Katz as "J". However, upon reviewing this thread, unless I'm overlooking something, it seems that is the only time you did that, unless you were doing it in another thread. So, please accept my apology for that comment about referring to us by a single letter initial rather than by our names. Edited to add: I notice that the original post in this thread was by a guest named "Stephen V". Then "Guest saa" (lower case letters) weighed in. And now we have "Guest SAA" (upper case letters). I'm assuming all three names are actually the same person. However, for the future, I hope Stephen V (and all other guests) will stick to the same name for all follow up comments. Otherwise, the rest of us have no idea whether we are talking to the original poster or to others who have weighed in, possibly with what is actually a different issue. So, please be consistent and use the same name throughout a thread.... or join the forum so your name always appears the same way!

See FAQ # 20 on the main website for starters: http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#20 Much depends on exactly what your bylaws say, especially regarding the terms of office.

Guest saa, you might find it noteworthy that even Jefferson's Manual (A Manual of Parliamentary Practice) by Thomas Jefferson, published in 1801 for use in the U.S. Senate, has essentially the same ranking order of motions, especially as to the relationship between the motion to postpone and the motion to refer or commit. So did the official rules of the House and Senate. (Jefferson's Manual, pages 66-78, Section XXXIII). A noteworthy exception is that Jefferson ranks the motion to postpone indefinitely higher than most other motions, rather than as the lowest of the subsidiary motions as most authorities do now. I would also point out that it is not only RONR (and all of its predecessors) that ranks the motion to postpone definitely above the motion to refer: I believe just about all respected parliamentary authorities treat it the same way. The AIP Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, for example, which is probably the 2nd most popular parliamentary authority in the U.S., treats it the same. So does Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure. One more point: You can refer to us by any respectful names you choose, but if you want enhance your chances of being "accepted" by the other posters, rather than being considered some eccentric nuisance, you might follow the same custom we all use when referring to each other: Use our NAMES, not initials. The only regular contributor of this forum who uses initials is J.J. (Jonathan Jacobs), a well known and very well respected PRP who has chosen to go by that nickname and forum name for at least the 17 or 18 years I have known him. And it's "J.J.", not "J".

I agree with Atul Kapur's comments immediately above. Buying an asset does not necessarily require borrowing money or encumbering association property or assets. They are different issues.

I agree with dr. Stackpole. If your bylaws say that a quorum is 5, then 5 it is until such time as you amend the bylaws. You must follow the procedure for amending the bylaws that is called for in the bylaws. There is no shortcut to that procedure

I suspect the only way to "dissolve" the entire board of directors is to rescind or amend the organization's bylaws. It MIGHT be possible to remove all of the remaining directors by following the provisions in the bylaws, but this strikes me as a dangerous thing to do. The organization will need to elect new directors quickly

I think we need more information from the bylaws and Covenants in order to properly weigh in on this. I don't think we have enough information about just what Authority the board has and when action of the Property Owners is required. Edited to add: for example, guest kiwi has given us a quote from the covenants, but we don't know what the bylaws say. Does this organization also have bylaws? What do they say on this subject?

What exactly do your bylaws say about board meetings and the powers of the board? Also, do your bylaws mention this committee chair group at all? Please quote the applicable provisions exactly, don't paraphrase. More questions. Do you have a general membership, or just a board? If you have a general membership, how often does it meet? Who created these committees and who appointed the committee chairs? Are the committees named in the bylaws? Or were they established by the general membership? Or by the board?

What we are telling you, Mr. Chang, is that it is a misconception that someone other than the regular presiding officer should preside over elections, especially if the regular presiding officer is a candidate. There is no basis for that in RONR. Unless you have a customized rule to the contrary, the regular presiding officer presides over elections, including his own election.

You are right that it is a legal, rather than a parliamentary, question. However, what do you mean by "minimum age for voting in a corporation meeting"? Are you referring to a stockholder's meeting in a for profit corporation? A board of directors meeting? A non-profit, non-stock corporation members meeting? Those distinctions are important. Edited to add: btw, Bryce, you might can find a site with a complete list by doing a Google search, but I suspect you will have to do a state by state search for this info.

Welcome to the forum, Victoria!

Are you sure that is the definition of a special resolution? That sounds to me like the requirement to adopt a special resolution, but not the definition of a special resolution. But, are you Incorporated? I have belonged to several non-profit organizations which are not Incorporated. In the United States, at least, an organization does not need to be incorporated in order to be considered non-profit.

Please quote for us the exact language of your bylaws regarding the removal of a director. Don't paraphrase, but quote the provision exactly.

Atul, I'm curious: what is it about the original post that makes you think this group is incorporated? They might well be incorporated, but I don't see anything that specifically indicates that they are. As to the term "special resolution", more information would be helpful. If the term is not defined in their bylaws or controlling state law, I would take it to be simply a fancy term for an ordinary resolution or motion.

Guest Erin, is this a meeting of just the Collegiate members or a meeting of all members? If it is a meeting of just the Collegiate members, then of course only Collegiate members can vote. However, if it is a meeting of all members, then I would say all members can vote, but the quorum is based on the number of Collegiate members who are present.

In addition to the questions asked by Dr. Stackpole, I am wondering what exactly is "the chapter locality"? How is it determined whether a member resides within the chapter locality?

While I agree with Mr. Harrison's answer, who or what is this "executive"? Executive Director? President? Executive Board? Executive chef? Chief executive officer?

I'm at a loss, too, as to just what the quoted provision means and as to who can vote. From what I see so far, it looks like a bylaws interpretation issue, something only the association can do. We really need more information, especially as to members.

Huh???

Under RONR, there is no requirement that items of new business be listed on the agenda in order to be brought up from the floor.

Although the last response in this thread is several days old, I am just now catching up on the message board and want to add a comment. I would note simply that an "agenda item" is not a motion per RONR. An agenda is merely a list of items of business to be considered at a meeting and the order in which they will be taken up. If the particular item is never presented in the form of a motion, there is nothing to lay on the table or "to table" or to postpone. If the "agenda item" was skipped over without anyone making the appropriate motion to take it up, it has died and can be brought up again at any future meeting. "Agenda items" do not carry over from one meeting to the next in RONR. In fact, for what it's worth, the term "agenda item" does not appear anywhere in RONR. However, agreeing with the others, even if one takes the position that the motion was laid on the table, it has long since died and can be renewed by making it again.

Agreeing with the previous responses, it seems to me that if it is a custom (or even a rule) that bylaw amendments must be "signed off on" by the trustees, president and secretary, it is those persons who are in office at the time of the amendment or revision who must sign off on it. I see no need whatsoever for any subsequent officers to have to do so unless the bylaws are amended again during their terms of office. I would add that I question whether this "signature sheet" is actually required by a rule anywhere. I suspect it is merely a practice that has become a custom. RONR certainly does not require or even suggest any such practice. As Atul Kapur pointed out, the minutes of the meeting at which the amendments or new bylaws were adopted are all that should be necessary. Note: It is rather common for amended or revised bylaws to include the date of the last amendment/revision. That helps members to know whether they have the most recent version.

Not that it matters much, but where do you see that this is a convention? Guest Rick D specifically said it's "a small group". However, he also referred to "a delegate". So, maybe.... and maybe not. It's somewhat contradictory language. Perhaps it's a very small convention.

Agreeing with the others and supplementing my answer above, no, it is not appropriate for the manager or anyone else to interrupt a member who has the floor unless it is to raise a point of order or some other privileged motion which permits an interruption. In my previous post, I said it is common for boards to allow someone such as the executive director (or manager) to attend and participate in board meetings. Although the board can grant such a non member whatever privileges it wants to, short of voting, it is more common for such non members to attend and to participate for the purpose of giving a report and to be present to answer questions and provide information. Other than that, they usually just sit quietly. Your board can decide for itself what the role of this "manager" should be at board meetings or if he should be allowed to attend at all.

It is quite common for non-board members, such as an executive director, to actively participate in board meetings, sometimes even as fully as regular board members except for the right to vote. It is up to the board itself to decide what rights and privileges to grant to such a non-member.