Dan Honemann

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)

I think you have this right.

There should be no doubt whatsoever but that, under the rules in RONR, the secretary is to record in the minutes the names of members who respond with "present" during a roll-call vote.

Well, it is certainly true that two levels of amendment (primary and secondary) can be proposed to a pending main motion (or resolution), whereas a pending primary amendment (whether in the form of a substitute or not) can have only one level of amendment proposed to it. I'm afraid that I do not really understand your question, but maybe the following statement will be of some assistance. If a primary amendment in the form of a proposed substitute for a main motion (or resolution) is pending, both the main motion (or resolution) and the proposed substitute are open to amendment by secondary amendment, but any such secondary amendment is not itself open to amendment.

In a roll-call vote on a motion, a voter may answer by saying "yes" ("yea"), "no" ("nay"), or "present" ("abstain"). These responses are all recorded in the minutes. The names of members who do not respond at all are entered in the minutes only if necessary to reflect the attendance of a quorum. I suggest you take a careful look at what is said relating to roll-call votes on pages 420-423 of RONR (11th ed.).

Mr. Baxter, in order to avoid this sort of confusion in the future, please note that you should ask your own questions by starting your own topic, and not by tacking them on to someone else's thread.

A member can respond with the word "present" only during a roll-call vote, and such a response is then entered in the minutes.

Only one.

Well, the first place to look for an answer to this question is the motion which was adopted appointing the parliamentarian. What, exactly, does it say?

A different question? I wouldn't think so.

Generally speaking, yes. See the last sentence of the footnote on page 6 of RONR (11th ed.).

It seems to me that the answers to the questions asked depend upon a determination as to whether or not the delegates at the annual meeting had the authority to take the action which they took when they adopted the budget. If they did, then I see nothing in what has been posted so far which would indicate that the board has the power to take any action which would conflict with the action taken by the delegates at the annual meeting.

If he is a member of the group that is voting he can vote for anyone he likes, including himself.