Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Adrien LaBombarde

Members
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Adrien LaBombarde

  • Birthday September 9

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Houston TX
  • Interests
    poetry, books, chess
  1. Back browsing around here. Been busy. Managed to get elected President of our HOA last September (partly because I actually bothered to read RONR several times through during the months before). Been herding elephants and slapping lids on cans of worms since then. But did manage to set up a special committee to review and amend bylaws. Including insertion of the missing "not," I'm hoping . . . although so far it's remaining difficult to explain to everyone else here why that one word is so essential to the parliamentary authority provision (and strangely, even showing the template in RONR
  2. Homeowners association, parliamentary authority RONR (11th ed., with the wonky blooper of the missing "not," so I'm looking at all this as if that had been corrected), nothing in our bylaws that touches on the following issue. At our monthly board meeting this past Monday, a director brought a motion to the board for consideration. The motion was poorly worded, so at the suggestion of the presiding officer (our president), the wording of the motion was amended before it was stated by the chair; then the amended version was seconded. Debate ensued on the reworded motion. A vote was take
  3. Presiding officers seeking authority to ask if any members are of the negative opinion on a motion might want to review item 3 of the rules for preference in being recognized, RONR (11th ed.)., p. 31, ll. 8-17, which not only contemplate the chair explicitly seeking counter opinion, but in appropriate circumstances even giving preference to such opinion when recognizing members seeking the floor during debate (as is recommended in other comment in this thread, which speak of alternating opinions pro vs con, when possible). The chair should remain impartial during a debate; but there are circu
  4. Again, thank you. This was the distinction I sought. I feel it to be implicit in everything else RONR has to say about the minutes, but was wishing I could have seen it more explicitly stated that way in the specific rule for what the minutes should say of a motion. But again, thanks to all for the good advice here.
  5. Thank you, all. Yes, my question was specifically directed at RONR, with only the backdrop of the silence of our bylaws on the matter, since I do know we could draft a bylaw that could call for more detail in the minutes. If and when we encounter any effort to draft such a bylaw, I will be strongly opposed, since I thing the RONR approach fair and best. As for having an entire transcript of the debate, eh . . . no, not a reasonable solution; besides, our state law does allow any attendee to record the proceedings of an open meeting, and sets no restrictions against distribution of
  6. Under RONR, is it proper for the minutes of a Board meeting for an HOA to include an allegation from one side of a controversy that emerged during a debate of a contentious motion, without inclusion of the other side's contention countering that statement and without any further context? If improper to include such an allegation, what is the recommended way to correct the minutes? - to eliminate that allegation raised within that portion of the debate? or to balance it out with the other counter-statement's contention? or to give greater detail of the full debate? Context is HOA wit
  7. We really must. And this is most definitely already one of the recommendations we will be making at an upcoming Board meeting dealing with all this. I myself am still but a RONR virgin. Although my own copy of RONR (11th) is already dog-eared and marked up, I have a Barnes & Noble receipt proving I purchased it only 10 days ago. And my copy of RONRIB is even fresher, although already getting its own dog-ears and notes. I might someday look into taking the necessary education and working for the necessary experience to gain one of those titles for myself. Not yet . . . insuffi
  8. I do understand that our bylaws take precedence over RONR. (See previous post about how our bylaws screw that one up . . . I do know we need to correct our parliamentary authority to get straight on that essential principle.) Maybe my question here comes down to how far a bylaw goes in taking its precedence over RONR. Our bylaw on removal of a director from the Board says the Board can do so with a 2/3 vote. That tells me that any other rule - majority vote with prior notice, vote by homeowners, or any other process we might find under RONR - is inapplicable to us. Our bylaw says
  9. Thank you. And yes, in the end, it comes down to how our organization interprets its own bylaws. I'll still value and appreciate the opinions I see here by those with knowledge and experience on these matters. No disrespect of our organization intended, but we have nobody who does have the knowledge and experience sufficient to reasonably interpret our own bylaws. Our current Board's familiarity with its own bylaws, much less with RONR, and even far more less our state laws, is pitifully nonexistent. As for our bylaw on removal of a director from the board, it appears to have
  10. While true of any organization that relies on RONR and its principles, the particular organization involved here is a homeowners association incorporated under state law and operating under state property law that explicitly imposes some of the notice requirements and other requirements our bylaws have left out of the equation. Ah, except even our state attorney general is quick to point out that we have no agency charged with enforcing those particular laws, so I'm well aware that ours is not the first and won't be the last to have to deal with a board that takes its privileges to extrem
  11. Irrelevant to our practical situation, perhaps. But very much appreciated and valued. With all due respect to our Board, I believe they themselves would openly admit that they do not understand any of this. For its recent attempt to remove one of our director, I firmly believe that they looked no further than the "Removal from Office" provision in our bylaws and took no further thought to any other rule or procedural requirement. Those lined up to vote against the targeted director were contacted in advance, but directors known to support the targeted director knew nothing until the
  12. In due course . . . and if they don't lynch me for simply trying to get us back on the even keel we were on for 28 years until the past 2 years, when a small but influential minority of our recent Board has turned our entire HOA upside down. The majority of homeowners don't want this recent circus - they want their old HOA back. But part of that process might have to start with getting our by laws, our covenants and deed restrictions, and just about every rule and regulation going back to our original Articles of Incorporation put in order. Let's start my list. For now, we're the H
  13. Unfortunately, I think that is what I'm really asking, since I think that's where our bylaws lead us. The unfortunate part of that being that it pretty much turns our whole process into a sham in which homeowners don't get advance notice of the action, get no explanation of the cause, the debate itself gets turned into a circus, et cetera. But whereas at one stage I thought I could simply point to section 63 the next time they try the same scheme, your conclusion here is confirming my fears - I don't think we have section 63 to fall back on.
  14. To what extent is RONR (11th ed.), §63., “Investigation and Trial,” binding on a homeowners association, the Board of which recently attempted to remove a Director without any apparent interest in applying §63 (or numerous other rules stipulated by RONR, for that matter)? RONR (11th ed.), p.653, ll. 26-34, in the first of two bullets, state – “If the bylaws provide that officers shall serve “for __ years or until their successors are elected,” the officer in question can be removed from office by adoption of a motion to do so. The vote required for adoption of such a motion is (a) a two-
  15. I completely agree that without that "not," the statement leads to illogical results . . . so I agree with the sense in this thread that we need to amend our bylaw; and since we can find no clear evidence of a clerical error, I'm hearing that we will need to fix this via a formal amendment to our bylaws. Due to other matters, such a formal amendment will be rather unlikely to move forward before October 2017. So your advice about how to interpret our own bylaws' Parliamentary Authority in the interim is rather well given: we'll need to use common sense, so as to give our own bylaws prece
×
×
  • Create New...