Joshua Katz

What makes you suspect he won't be at the meeting to present them?

There is no contradiction - an incomplete election is not the same thing as a vacancy.

There is nothing in RONR about an owner's forum at a condo meeting. The question of holding such a forum at your meeting would be a matter of your rules.

The policies manual cannot override the bylaws. If the bylaws say that new members get all the benefits of membership immediately, then they do, policies to the contrary notwithstanding. However, if you are uncertain as to what the bylaws say, the way that the organization has interpreted them provides information - and the organization is the ultimate interpreter of bylaws, not us. So I'm not talking about a matter of overriding, but of interpretation. On the other hand, if the bylaws are clear and explicit that new members become members prior to the ceremony, then that gives an easy answer to the OP, and the organization should stop restricting their rights via policy.

I think the best answer was implied by Mr. Goldsworthy. We can't interpret bylaws, but the organization can. Does the organization permit members to exercise the perks of active membership prior to the ceremony?

What do the bylaws say about discipline? Is the board empowered to suspend members?

You've answered your own question. Someone is going to hold the position (presumably), and if there are no other nominees, what's the plan, exactly? You could, I guess, amend your bylaws so that people can vote for "leave it vacant." Edit: As Mr. Mervosh points out, assuming the balloting is in the bylaws, a write-in candidacy is a possibility. If no one runs such a campaign, a group of people could still get together and write someone in, and see if they accept.

I suppose I could let go of that bone, but it seems to matter to the question. It also seems that the questioner means something different by 'suspend' than update and amend, and it's possible our answer could depend on what is meant.

Well, if you told me you had operating procedures for a business entity, and asked what to call them in a parliamentary setting, I'd say standing rules, so I'm not clear on what distinction you're making. But I stand by my claim that they aren't suspendable. More importantly, neither of the two things you've listed is the same thing as suspending a rule. Rescinding a rule is not suspending it, and amending a rule is not suspending it. It's like asking "in which way should we print this document - by emailing it to someone, or by deleting it?" Both of those may be valid actions, but neither is printing it. For a better parallel, just imagine that printing the document is not allowed.

I mean that, once you type up all those notes, including all the conflicting points, and present that draft, there's going to be a fight about approving the minutes. People are going to want to amend out what conflicts with their version, and stick in things that are consistent with their version. Anyone mentioned in other people's versions will likely be saying "that's not what I said" or "you edited what I said so that it means something different" or some variation on that.

Agreeing with the above, it is your job to produce draft minutes for adoption. You don't answer to the chair in that regard, you answer to the assembly. (Certainly, the other members being dragooned into typing up their version of events don't answer to the chairman, either!) I can just imagine what the adoption process would be like once you type in everyone's version... Point out that your parliamentary authority says what should be in the minutes - what was done - and provides the means by which additional items can be included: an order from the assembly. Furthermore, point out that the chair is not the assembly. The conclusion should be clear.

Additionally, full sentences should be used in the minutes. Neither of the two examples used is a full sentence. The second is ambiguous. Is the company by Mark Epstein, the vacancy, or the motion?

I can't really tell, but I'm working on the assumption that they are standing rules, not bylaws. Even so, they sound like rules having their application outside the meeting context. I'm not totally sure on that either, hence why I'm not confident on the conclusion, but that's what it sounds like to me.

In addition to the above points, I don't think these rules are suspendable. That said, a suspension is neither a rescission nor an amendment, so you shouldn't suspend them and consider it to be one of those actions. You can simply replace the rules by new rules, or if you want them to go away right now, rescind them and then adopt new rules when you're ready.

Nothing in RONR hinges on attendance or signing in. If something in your rules hinges on attendance or signing in, then your rules should define attendance. If they don't, well, your organization will need to determine what attendance means for its purposes, but I tend to think you'd be on shaky ground if, without having anything in your rules, you decided to penalize someone for lack of attendance who was there for even an instant.

What do you mean by premise? As far as legality, I don't see how adding what people said in debate will help you to determine if the action proposed is legal. Certainly it will help you know that Mr. Smith said it wasn't legal, and Mr. Taylor said it was, but I don't see how that gets you any closer to answering the question.

Many of us here are in a profession which values not asking questions unless you already know the answer, but point taken. Yes, the RONR description of what should be in the minutes is not intended as "include at least this" but rather, at least if RONR is all that applies, "include this, nothing less and nothing more." Of course, the assembly is free to direct the Secretary to include more, and can do whatever it wants with amendments, but the intent is that what is described is all that should be in there. I like your description of the pitfalls of including debate - indeed, I think a part of this is to discourage relitigating the issue when approving the minutes.

I have no idea whatsoever what the guidelines of print journalism have to do with the question of what RONR says should be in minutes, which is presumably what people want to know when they come to a RONR forum and ask about minutes. I also have no idea what the guidelines of print journalism have to do with the question of what RONR should say about minutes. One of the challenges here, of course, is "...so long as what one reports is true." Some questions about meetings are objective. In other matters, though, truth is the recollection of a majority - some of whom may not have been present at the last meeting, and some of the attendees of that meeting might not be present at the next meeting. The rule from RONR that the minutes are a record of what was done, not what was said, are not a reflection of some belief that fiduciaries don't make mistakes or have poor motives. They are a reflection of the fact that the body acts as one after debate, and it is not our job to make it easier to apportion blame for a joint decision. They are also a reflection of the practical reality that people trying to figure out when the budget was authorized shouldn't have to wade through reams of comments by Mr. Smith, or questions from Mr. Taylor about how often the newsletter comes out.

1. No, it is not appropriate to include any debate in the minutes (the person who wanted to know why might want to read the OP on this thread). 2. If the minutes have been approved, it would be appropriate to amend them using the motion to amend something previously adopted, by striking out any debate that has been included (that's not the language of the motion, of course, just a description). It will require a majority with notice, 2/3 without, or a majority of the entire membership, any one of which will suffice. If they have not been approved, they can be amended while pending, which will take a majority vote.

I can't make heads or tails of this, largely because I don't know your rules and can't imagine how, for instance, they permit counting absentee voters towards quorum, but apparently don't require you to do so. I also don't know your customized rules for proxies, or why you'd need a special provision for those carrying proxies to vote. Have you tried asking this question to your parliamentarian?

There should be no motion related to the treasurer's report. If the report has been audited, the auditor's report should be adopted. Otherwise, the treasurer should just be thanked.

Special rules of order are rules adopted that supersede an assembly's parliamentary authority (at least, when that parliamentary authority is RONR). That doesn't mean they supersede the bylaws. The hierarchy is: Applicable procedural statutes, articles of incorporation, constitution, bylaws, special rules of order, rules of order (parliamentary authority), standing rules.

Stated without argument, and this is precisely what we've been denying: that giving notice is the transaction of business in this sense.

No, your bylaws outrank your special rules of order.

I haven't read your bylaws, and don't plan to, since we don't interpret bylaws. However, first, asynchronous voting, and voting by phone, would only be permitted if specifically permitted in your bylaws. Second, nothing restricts the election to the two earlier nominees. I have no idea if another special meeting is needed (called in accordance with your bylaws) or if you can hold the election at a regular meeting, but, unless your bylaws say otherwise, it has to happen at a meeting.