Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Atul Kapur

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Atul Kapur

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Since Mr. Martin was good enough to direct the discussion back to RONR (rather than USHoR), a small addition: the motion Lay on the Table cannot be applied to an undebatable appeal that does not relate to (aka "does not adhere to") the main motion. So, to summarize: - Adhering appeals: Can Lay the main motion on the Table and adhering appeals go with it - Non-Adhering appeals - Debatable: Can be Laid on the Table by itself - UNDebatable: Cannot be Laid on the Table.
  2. While what you suggest is correct (exquisitely so), the important part of your original post is "no harm done".
  3. I think that the term "a 2019 membership" is a red herring that has confused the situation. The Board did not accept an application for membership. Under the then-current bylaws, this meant the person did not become a member. Nothing says that this motion is still in force. The now-current bylaws have a different requirement for membership. The applicant submits a new membership and it is accepted under the new rules. In fact, if the old rules were still in place and the applicant re-submitted their application, the board would be able to accept the second application by a majority vote. This would be a Renewal of the motion to accept J. Doe's membership application.
  4. It is too late as Mr. Elsman says, to change the individual's vote. I don't understand this sentence, "As I understand it, however, the abstention would prevent the board member from bringing the question to the floor again. Is that correct?" Abstaining makes no difference as to the right to bring the question to the floor again. Perhaps you are thinking of the motion to Reconsider? Only someone who has voted on the prevailing side can make the motion to Reconsider, so someone who abstained would not have that right. But it is too late to Reconsider this motion (needed to be done before the adjournment of that meeting). Any member can make the motion to Rescind but, as Mr. Elsman says, that motion would not be in order.
  5. I'm not sure how a statement in the FAQ can be said to contradict silence.
  6. Further, option B is incorrect. Imagine what situation the board would be in if the motion to rescind failed.
  7. Not if they're following RONR.
  8. Why do you think that way? I would think that unless there is an explicit requirement to quote the amendment, that giving the substance is adequate. Why treat bylaws differently than other motions requiring notice?
  9. I'm not so certain that the challenge to the developer's ballots is a lost cause. We are told that the HOA "agreed" to them being cast; that may have been informal rather than by vote. It may very well be that, once it is brought to the chair's attention that this violates a "fundamental principle of parliamentary law" (RONR 11th ed., p. 263, lines 18-23), that the Point of Order would be well taken. You could even make an argument here that any appeal would be dilatory and out of order. đŸ˜‰ This all assumes, of course, that the bylaws do not say anything otherwise.
  10. While I agree with you, Mr. K, I do have a question for you: What becomes of those portions that are removed? Since we are told that even things that are Rescinded and Expunged from the Minutes "must not be blotted or cut out so that they cannot be read", would that also apply to the portions of the minutes that are removed by way of ASPA?
  11. Usually this type of motion is only proper as a show of solidarity by a losing candidate. Most times this comes up, the chair should declare the sole nominee elected by acclamation rather than following the procedure you describe. Alternatively, this is attempted when the bylaws require a ballot vote and that requirement cannot be subverted in this way. Which circumstance are you describing?
  12. If the inquorate meeting was a board meeting, then the answer is Yes, as Mr. Honemann has said. But it's not clear from the question whether the inquorate meeting was a board meeting, or a general meeting.
  13. RONR uses the term Executive Session to describe a meeting, or portion of a meeting, "at which the proceedings are secret." (p. 95, line 18). "The minutes, or record of proceedings, of an executive session must be read and acted upon only in executive session [and, therefore, stay confidential] unless that which would be reported in the minutes -- that is, the action taken, as distinct from that which was said in debate -- was not secret, or secrecy has been lifted by the assembly." (p. 96, lines 9-14)
  14. I'm not quite sure that I understand your question. However, the minutes are not "the minutes" until they are approved at the next regular meeting. Before then, they are only draft minutes. General members have no right of access to the draft minutes of a board meeting. OR if the general meeting "orders the board's minutes to be produced and read to the society's assembly." (p. 487, lines 19-20)
  15. Agreed. I almost added that to my last post. But Member Y's purpose is explicit.
  • Create New...