Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Steve E

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Steve E

  • Birthday 07/25/1958

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Sag Harbor, NY
  • Interests
    Lions Club, Home brewer and vintner. Currently recovering from hip replacement surgery.
  1. I was told the story of a member of an HOA who was trying to squash a motion made by another member. He interjected his own motion to adjourn right after the original main motion was presented without receiving the floor. The story continues that the chair then asked for and received a second and called for a vote. The yeas won and the meeting was adjourned. The member making the motions was “an object attached to another object by an inclined plane wrapped around an axis.” He didn’t understand his rights in the meeting. The motion was never mentioned in the minutes. My question: Between the time a member is recognized and presents a main motion and the end of the presenter’s argument yielding the floor in the debate, can another member gain the floor to move for an adjournment, recess, lay on the table or postpone indefinitely? My opinion is no. 1) The motioner holds the floor during his/her motion. 2) He yields to the chair after the motion was presented. 3) The chair has the floor and must request a second, state the question and then offer the motioner the floor for his argument. 5) The motioner holds the floor for his period of time or until he yields after his argument in debate. A member now may gain the floor and may make a privileged motions as I listed. The motion to adjourn was A) Out of order because the interrupting member never received the floor. B) The member who interrupted the original motion may not do so during a main motion with another privileged motion except for a Question of Privilege. C) The chair prevented the making of a legitimate motions or deprived a member the right to introduce new business. RONR p.360 ll.20-24 During this period in this exercise, the chair may only hear and act upon a motion "objecting to the consideration of the motion” (or any other an incidental motion that can interrupt). That incidental motion would have prevented the presentation or the continuation of the motion if the objection was won by a majority of nay votes. This may have received the same affect as the non- parliamentary interruption.. Am I correct in writing that a 2/3rds of the votes in the Nay would stop the motion? Or are my negatives mixed up?
  2. Even if the relaxed rules are in effect and the member is known to go on, couldn't a board member rise to a parliamentary inquiry, "Is it the intent of the member to make a motion?” It now puts the the inquiry in front of the chair to decide to allow the speech or to press for a motion If the member does this often the board may want to restrict some of those relaxed provisions starting on p. 487.
  3. Seems appropriate to me, provided the Point of Order related to the resident's comments. Whether the point should have been ruled well taken is not clear without more facts. Mr. Nelson, do you know why the point of order was made by the Councilor?
  4. Each year our president appoints an ad-hoc nominating committee two months before the nomination meeting. Both the committee and the nominating meeting are prescribed in our bylaws. The committee nominates one person for each office. The committee submits its report to the chair before the nominations meeting. The report is made available to the membership by electronic means and a few by USPS. If a quorum is not made for the nominations meeting the report of the committee still stands as a slate of officers. Our bylaws require a ballot election so anyone may write in a name at the time of elections.
  • Create New...