Richard Brown

Well, you can adopt the 10th edition by specifying that is the edition you are adopting. But, adopting "In Brief" is problematic. On page 7 of "In Brief", it says it is not suitable for adoption as a parliamentary authority and that if an organization tries to adopt it, the organization is instead adopting the latest edition of RONR. Here are the key two paragraphs from page 7 of RONR In Brief: "It is important to understand, though, that this introductory book is not itself the rule book. Only the complete Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised—RONR—is that. To keep to the framework of a simple guide, this book omits a great many rules, avoids certain subject areas altogether, and doesn't get into many exceptions to the rules it does include. It is the rules in RONR that govern, and nothing in this book may be cited instead of or in conflict with RONR. To help ready reference to the complete rules, each subject covered here is cross-referenced to the pages of its fuller treatment in RONR. By reading this book you will learn how to find the additional rules in RONR if you need them. Because this book is only an introduction and guide to RONR, it is not itself suitable for adoption by any organization as its "parliamentary authority"—the book of rules the group names to govern its meeting procedure. If any organization designates this book as its parliamentary authority, it actually adopts the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. "

Guest Chelsea, opening the meeting and presiding over the elections are really different issues, or at least can be different issues. What exactly is it you are concerned about? Opening the meeting when the chairman is absent ? Having the chairman preside over his own election? Something else? Hopefully, our answers as a whole have answered your question, but we could be more specific if we knew more about the specific situation.

RONR provides that if neither the chair or vice chair are present. the Secretary should call the meeting to order and that the assembly should then immediately elect a chair pro tem. Often this is done by unanimous consent. Edited to add: after reading George's response, I realize guest Chelsea is probably wondering who presides over the regular election of officers when both the chair and vice chair are themselves candidates. If so, then as George explained, the regular chair presides if he is present even if he is a candidate.

I don't have a copy of RONR in front of me at the moment, but it's my understanding that the power to "establish" a committee includes the right to appoint its members . So, to That extent, I suppose my opinion is different from that of Dr. Stackpole, who is apparently at least looking at RONR. Ultimately, I think this is an issue of bylaws interpretation, something only your organization can do. Stay tuned for more opinions!

Use the motion Rescind (or amend) something previously adopted. It requires a regular majority vote if previous notice is given. Otherwise, a two thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership is required.

Thank you. Larry. Let's hope the dog is a playful and loving pup and that we all have a happy, productive and prosperous new year! We still have about another 15 hours before that dog arrives in New Orleans. . . But maybe this explains why mine is being so playful this morning. Maybe he knows it's going to be his year! Happy new year!

Yes, but only in the sense that a non-board member can request that a board member attempt to add the item to the agenda or to bring it up at a meeting. A non-member (non board member) cannot insist on anything. For the normal way of having items placed on an agenda, see FAQ # 14: http://robertsrules.com/faq.html#14 Your rules for adopting an agenda may well be different. Also, if RONR is your parliamentary authority, an adopted agenda may be amended by a two-thirds vote during the meeting.

No, unless it was a regularly scheduled board meeting for which notices are not sent out. But, if it was a special (or called) meeting, then ALL members are entitled to be given the appropriate notice. The same would be true regardless of whether the meeting is a general membership meeting or a board meeting. Without the appropriate notice, any action taken at the meeting would be void and of no effect. Edited to add: I am assuming that your rules (bylaws) require notice of special meetings and that special meetings are permitted by your bylaws. Special meetings are not permitted at all unless authorized in the bylaws. If your bylaws are silent as to the notice requirement, and if RONR is your parliamentary authority, then notice must be sent to all members "a reasonable number of days in advance". RONR, pages 91-92.

Guest Bubba, I'll try to respond with more later (unless others beat me to saying what I want to say). But, for now, just keep in mind that the interpretation of the bylaws is ultimately up to your membership. In the event of a dispute, or an appeal from the ruling of the chair, it is a majority of those members present and voting (both by proxy and in person) who will decide the issue, provided a quorum is present and you don't have a rule to the contrary about interpreting the bylaws. It requires a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair. By majority vote, I mean a majority of those present and voting, both in person and by proxy, provided your bylaws allow proxy voting on such issues. Some bylaws allow proxy voting only in elections and/or bylaw amendments.

I agree with the comments by Dr. Stackpole and Bruce Lages. Your 60% requirement for a quorum is a bit higher than normal but it may be working fine for your HOA. If you are having a problem obtaining a quorum, you might consider a lower number. On the other hand, the "diminishing" quorum requirement for an adjourned meeting probably solves that problem rather nicely although creating an inconvenience for those who show up twice. It also serves as a pretty good incentive for members to show up the first time because at an adjourned meeting a much smaller number will be in the majority and can have their way. As to the requirement of two thirds of the votes entitled to be cast in order to amend the bylaws, that is an unusually high requirement, much higher than the RONR standard of two thirds of the votes cast. Your requirement, as I interpret it, amounts to two thirds of the entire membership, less those who are delinquent. That is an extraordinarily high requirement. It might be possible to interpret that provision to mean "two thirds of the votes entitled to be cast at that meeting" (which would be roughly tantamount to two thirds of the members present), but that's not exactly what it says. It's ambiguous to me. How does your HOA interpret that provision?

Agreeing with Mr. Katz, RONR has no prohibition against a husband and wife (or any other family members) serving together on a board or as officers. Any such prohibition would have to be in your own bylaws.

I concur with JJ's analysis immediately above. I don't see where the bylaws definitively take away any of the ultimate decision making power in matters of governance granted to the membership in article VII Section A. But, as JJ said, this is ultimately a question of bylaws interpretation which does seem to be vested in the membership.

No, at.least not if the committee has at least two members. The rationale is that if the motion comes from committee, at least two members already support it.

I concur with the remarks immediately above by Weldon Merritt and also with his remarks in his first post.

Well, you also made a reference to the 13th edition. . . .

Guest Judy, agreeing with both Mr. Huynh and Mr. Mervosh, please quote for us the exactly what the ten day notice requirement is in the bylaws. I suspect it is for calling meetings, not for canceling them. The wording is important. Meetings can normally be officially cancelled only if there is express authority for doing so in the bylaws.

Special meetings may be called only by those persons specifically authorized to do so in the bylaws. Note: if this is a school organization, some superior school rule might control.

It looks like the forum administrators combined the two threads by moving his new post to this thread.

Guest Craig, in the future please post your follow up comments and questions on the same issue in the original thread rather than by starting a new thread. Since RONR prohibits online or email or absentee voting of any sort unless expressly authorized in your bylaws, you are really on your own here and your organization must figure this out for itself. It's your rule that authorizes this sort of voting. You have to interpret your own rules. RONR would not allow this to happen. But, if you are going to follow the rules in RONR to the greatest extent possible, I would take the position that a new amendment is out of order until at least one or, depending on the amendment, both amendments "on the floor" have been disposed of. I also have a problem with voting on two amendments at the same time. In RONR, amendments are taken up and voted on one at a time in the reverse order in which they were proposed. You would never be voting on two amendments at the same time. Edited to add: here is a link to guest Craig's original thread: http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/31158-amendments/ Edited again to add: ignore my admonition to guest Craig to post his follow up comments in this original thread and also the the link above. The forum administrators apparently combined the two threads.

Guest Craig, were you actually in the middle of a vote on one of the amendments or were you still discussing them? I question whether you were actually in the middle of a vote (taking the yeas and nays) on two amendments at the same time. Something about the facts as you presented them doesn't seem quite right. Can you elaborate?

Agreeing with Mr. Honemann, I would add that a non-member can be allowed to address the society by a majority vote if the speech is not in the nature of debate. An example of such an address would be a member of a homeowner's association addressing the Board about some matter of interest to the member at the end of a board meeting.... or members of the public addressing a city council at the end of a meeting.

If you are concerned about misappropriation of funds, you can and should require that the treasurer be bonded. Edited to add: unless it is very carefully drafted, a prohibition against write-in votes would be in the nature of a rule of order and could be suspended by a two-thirds vote, even if It's in the bylaws .

I agree. If it is desired that the board have exclusive control of the affairs of the organization, the bylaws may be amended to give me board exclusive control. But I would certainly think long and hard before adopting such a provision. It is quite likely to be regretted over time when the board starts ignoring the wishes of the membership.

I disagree with much of what JJ said in the post above, or at least with his conclusions, but will have to wait until later to elaborate.

I don't think the "calling authority " can cancel one either unless authorized by an appropriate rule. This has been the subject of much discussion in this forum, but I think the response by Shmuel Gerber in what I believe post # 5 in this thread (please give us back post numbers!) provides the correct answer: