Dan Honemann

If the question as to inclusion in the minutes of a motion which an assembly has refused to consider at one of its meetings is first raised when the secretary's draft (including, as it should, the spurned motion) is presented for approval, then I agree that it will have to be raised by moving to amend ("correct") the secretary's draft by striking out that portion of the minutes which makes reference to it. If the chair rules (as I think he should) that such a motion is not in order, then a member may move to suspend the rules which interfere with the consideration and adoption of this motion to amend ("correct") the minutes. This is the course of action I would suggest. Or, I suppose, an appeal might be taken from the ruling of the chair, arguing that the rule in the book is only a "should" rule, not a "must" rule, and therefore the motion to correct the minutes is in order and can be adopted by a majority vote. Now all of us here on the Forum can cast a vote as to whether or not the ruling of the chair should be sustained. 🙂

Let's take this one step at a time. First of all, it seems to me that an organization could adopt a special rule of order providing that the minutes of its proceedings shall not include any motion which was not considered due to an objection to its consideration having been sustained. If this is so, then I would also think that such a rule could be adopted for a single session by a two-thirds vote. And if this is so, then I would also think that the rules could be suspended so as to allow the assembly to agree that a particular motion which was not considered due to a sustained objection to its consideration not be recorded in the minutes. Drafting of such a rule or motion won't be as easy as it might seem because allowance may have to be made for the possibility of the undesirable motion being carried over to a subsequent meeting or session due to a motion to reconsider the vote that sustained the objection to its consideration being made but not taken up at the meeting at which it was made, but I suppose this won't present an insurmountable problem. Or I guess the rule could also ban reconsideration.

Since rule number one is obviously not a rule of order, that's as far as I got. 🙂

Looks like you're not supposed to make any, although I suspect that privileged motions (a motion to Recess, for example) would probably be entertained.

No need to refer to me by my title.

One reason would be that they have a rule which says that only questions can be asked (no motions made) under "Information and Enquiries".

You can if they let you.

Dismemberment?

The most recent issue of the National Parliamentarian tells me that the next edition is expected to be released at the NAP's 2020 Training Conference.

I think we ought not lose sight of the fact that there is a substantial difference between (i) expunging from the minutes a main motion which has been adopted, and (ii) agreeing not to include in the minutes a main motion which was not considered because an objection to its consideration was sustained, as was posited here. In the latter instance, I think a two-thirds vote will suffice.

If RONR is the adopted parliamentary authority, the association's rules (assuming no special rule, bylaw, etc. to the contrary) require that main motions that have been made during the course of a meeting are to be included in the minutes of that meeting. As a consequence, it seems to me that it will require a suspension of the rules in order to approve minutes of a meeting which knowingly and deliberately fail to include a main motion which was, in fact, made during that meeting.

The first thing you need to do is to make sure that your board has the power to accept these resignations (see RONR, 11th ed., pp. 467-68). Then take a look at what is said in Section 32 of RONR, especially on page 291, and come back if you have any further questions.

Hasn't Sailorman been referring to a special meeting?

Them? 🙂

I don't see anything materially wrong with what occurred. Members have a right to change their votes before the result is announced by the chair, and apparently this is what happened. Thereafter, the chair announced the result of the vote.

The requirement of " ... an affirmative vote of two thirds (2/3) of the Unit Owners" seems pretty clear to me.

Yes.

What leads you to believe that there is any material difference?

You're right. The rules which impose time limits on debate do not apply to someone who is presenting a committee report. (RONR, 11th ed., p. 388, ll. 21-25)

And look at Section 35 in your copy of RONR (11th ed.) for details relating to motions to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted.

This is the reason why my response was written as it was. The motion that died for lack of a second may have been an incidental main motion to postpone something, or it may have been a subsidiary motion to postpone,

If this motion was a main motion, the minutes should reflect that it died for lack of a second. If it was a subsidiary motion to postpone a pending main motion, it shouldn't be reported at all.

Try page 92.

Well, first of all, please refrain from using absurdities as examples. It doesn't help at all. I'm afraid that you may not be reading this section correctly. I think the section does tell us that the secretary is to record the names of all who answered "present" (in other words, announced their abstention), as well as the names of all who voted either in favor of or against the motion being voted on. Names of members who are present but who do not respond to a roll call are entered in the minutes only when, and to the extent that, it is necessary to do so to reflect the presence of a quorum.

"In roll-call voting, a record of how each member voted, as well as the result of the vote, should be entered in full in the journal or minutes. If those responding to the roll call do not total a sufficient number to constitute a quorum, the chair must direct the secretary to enter the names of enough members who are present but not voting to reflect the attendance of a quorum during the vote." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 422)