Atul Kapur

I have done it, but with a group that was not very knowledgeable. So, to avoid my "pass" being interpreted as an abstention, I said, "come back to me".

I agree with Mr. Brown that the Point of Order should be about whether these items meet the standard of "requiring consideration before the next regular Board Meeting"" The notice appears adequate with the agenda comprising part of the notice.

First, a tie vote is a clear decision: their is not a majority in favour so the motion is defeated. Under RONR, the presiding officer only votes when their vote would change the outcome. That is, if their affirmative vote would change a tie vote (= defeated) to a majority vote in favour or if their negative vote would change a majority of one vote to a tie vote. For example, if the vote was 10-10 then the motion would be defeated. The chair could vote in favour to make it 11-10 and the motion would be adopted. On the other hand, if the vote was 9-8, then the chair could vote against (negative) and make the vote 9-9. In that case, the motion would be defeated. You should also check the laws that apply to your HOA.

Once the Constitution has been ratified, then the term limits come into force. Any member who has been there for 2 or more consecutive terms total is term-limited when the term limits come into force. Consider a situation where there were no term limits and they were added by amending the Constitution. A person who had been a senator for 2, 3, or 10 terms consecutively is now subject to the term limit once it is adopted. The clock doesn't re-set to zero when the term limit is adopted, unless you adopt a proviso to do that. And, no, this is not a retrospective application of the term limit. No one is going back in time and saying the previous terms do not count, just that as of the time the term limit comes into force, you have served 2, 3, or 10 terms consecutively so you are barred from re-election.

I'm not certain of that. My first question was whether the revised proposal was sent with adequate notice. For example, consider if the required notice is 30 days. If the initial proposal was sent 45 days in advance and the second was send 35 days in advance, then I don't think that the revised proposal needs to fit within the scope of notice of the initial proposal.

It would be good to introduce them to the In Brief book. It is a much less daunting tome and will still cover the vast majority of situations that can be expected to occur in an ordinary organization.

In other words, they don't want any revisions except the ones that they propose, probably using the excuse that these were ones they had to make because they got advice from a lawyer and a parliamentarian. That just shows that the version that they put out there was not perfect and it may still not be perfect. Pointing this out may make it easier for you to get the assembly to agree that amendments during the meeting are acceptable. And the fact that they made some changes based on the input of "other members" really makes it obvious that they feel the vast majority of your membership is not smart enough to be trusted to propose amendments but that some few favored members did have a chance to provide input. (Note that I have seen some general meetings were they accept that concept and go along with the idea that no changes are to be made at the meeting. I believe those meetings either felt that they trusted the work of the committee and/or did not want to be bothered with doing that work at the meeting.) Was the link sent out in time to meet the notice requirement? Was the email sent to all members? If answer to either question is no, then these changes would have to be presented as amendments at the meeting.

You're absolutely correct, Weldon (and you don't need me to tell you that because I never doubt it). But I took Mr. Apodaca's exact words, that it was a resolution to change the dates.

Guess Patrick, to expand on the answers you have been given: if someone is making a motion to amend the bylaws, that motion can be amended. However, ignore the section on friendly amendments. What you need to concern yourself with is whether your amendment falls within the scope of notice of the motion that is being proposed. This hiccup is explained on pages 594-596, pay particular attention to p, 595, lines 3-21. If you think it is a “friendly amendment” (even though that doesn't really exist ), then it is more likely that it does fall within the scope of notice and would be acceptable.

You state, "a resolution was made to change the date", presumably the date in the 2010 motion. In that case it was a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted made in the form of a resolution. I see no problem here.

I was impressed that the phone I that I was dictating into got the spelling as closely as it did.

I don't have the book in front of me (and I nominate IDHTBIFOM as an approved acronym on this forum) but, as I recall, the only prohibition is that you cannot share the proceedings of what went on in executive session with those who were not there or were not entitled to be there. While the risk of that occurring is likely higher if someone has made notes and taken them home, you cannot presume that the one automatically leads to the other. Nevertheless, it may be prudent for the chair to remind members that they are responsible for the security of any notes that they take in executive session. And there are entirely legitimate reasons for someone to take notes during an executive session. To give just one example, as an aide-memoire for when they review the draft minutes.

Under RONR, there is no need to adopt an agenda listing every item that is to come up at the meeting, if you meet regularly and they aren't more than a quarterly time interval apart. So an agenda doesn't need to specifically identify any motion. Your organization may operate under special rules that require you to adopt such an agenda. If so, then the motion to Reconsider may have been made at one meeting but not considered, so it could be considered at the next meeting. It probably would come up under New Business, or perhaps as a General Order.

Well, if it's merging into the other company, couldn't the continuing company's board approve them? If these companies are actual companies, then the law about corporations in the relevant jurisdiction may be of help.

Sure, but they have no right to use HOA resources for this get-together. I wouldn't use the term "meet" to avoid confusion as to whether this is any type of meeting. It's a group of people gathering for their own purpose.

No, this is not an "undeclared meeting," whatever that creature is. It is not a meeting at all and has no status; you've told us that your meetings require notice, so without notice it's not a meeting. People who are there can discuss whatever topics they want but they cannot take any action or vote in the name of the HOA. Nothing in RONR requires an HOA officer to be present at a meeting for it to be "official" (your bylaws may hace such a requirement). A meeting needs to have a presiding officer and a secretary. If the HOA officers are not present, then the general meeting can elect pro-tem presiding officer and secretary. They can do it if they want. There's nothing wrong with this informal discussion (including strategizing on how to get the outcome they prefer at an official meeting). Again, it has no official status.

I agree but want to emphasize that the amendment is then a part of the bylaws. It is not a one-off or temporary in any way. If you subsequently want to change it back, you'll have to go through the amendment procedure again.

Teme a La Ira de Dan

"Canadian" is a very easy way of indicating that the person is of high intelligence and that his opinions should be given the utmost respect and thoughtful consideration. He is probably more familiar with organizations where write-in votes are prohibited. Malicious insinuations about the intelligence of others are more effective if the perpetrator knows how to spell properly. It is known as a loonie.

Just to be clear: She is currently holding a position with a three-year term 2018-2021. If she runs and is elected to a position this year, her term will be 2020-2023 (and, as Mr. Martin has noted, there will be a vacancy in her original position, with one year left in that term). I mention this because the OP's quote above sounds like someone thinks that her term would be extended for three years after her current 2018-2021 term ends (ie: 2021-2024).

I would say that, under "Principles of Interpretation" of bylaws, RONR says the exact opposite: "4) If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited." (RONR 11th ed., p. 589, lines 33-34) Parenthetically, I will note that Principle of Interpretation (1) is the reference for the oft-stated concept that "Each society decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws." (p. 588, line 25)

However, I believe that the requirement for the approval of the board would also apply to the removal of a committee member.

Agreeing with Mr. Martin's answer, I draw your attention to the fact that RONR does not refer to " 'material' mistakes". Your quotation refers to errors and that invludes any error. Materiality is only relevant when it comes to omissions.

I concur with Guest Zev and Mr. Brown.

There is nothing in RONR that supports what you told the President. So as far as whether it's according to RONR, it was incorrect. However, you have told us that your bylaws give the answer (vacancy in Treasurer position results in combining it with Secretary). So you don't need to refer to RONR at all in this situation.