Atul Kapur

What is being planned does not sound like a meeting. It sounds like an informal session where the president controls all aspects. That's not a meeting as RONR considers it - in   aproper meeting the members control, within the rules; I'm not certain it qualifies as a "hearing" either.

You may want to attend and still insist on a proper meeting.

This forum deals with RONR. It sounds like your questions are best taken to a lawyer with experience in the laws that apply to your association and the code to which you refer. 

On 4/22/2024 at 11:14 PM, Guest Sally said:

The contractor has been hired. The design plans have been submitted. We're waiting on permits. .... Even though the original motion did not approve any particular design

So who did approve the design, and did that person/body have the authority to do so? If they exceeded their authority, then the organization may wish to consider a motion to Ratify that decision. If that motion is adopted, you proceed. If the motion to Ratify is defeated and the design was not properly authorized, then this project may have to be stopped then and there (and there would be ramifications for the individuals who improperly approved the design).

If, on the other hand, the design was properly approved, then the motion to reaffirm the decision is out or order. There could still be a motion to change things, but not a motion to reaffirm.

On 4/22/2024 at 11:14 PM, Guest Sally said:

The cost and funding method has changed since approved in the original motion. Does there need to be a separate motion to amend it? 

Are those terms (cost and funding g method) in the original motion and are those terms are no longer being followed? If so, then Yes, you do need to Amend Something Previously Adopted or go back to following the motion that was originally adopted.

Before you go further down any path, I suggest you stop and figure out how you got here:

• Who approved the design / signed the contract with that design? Were they authorized to do that or did they exceed their authority?
• How did costs exceed what was approved? Who approved that change? Were they authorized to do that or did they exceed their authority?
• How did the funding method that was approved get changed? Who approved that change? Were they authorized to do that or did they exceed their authority?

These are likely not questions that we can help you answer, but the answers should help you figure our the correct course of action.

If I understand correctly, the proposed motion would change elements of the project from what was originally adopted (e.g. changing the amounts of money). This is clearly a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (ASPA). If this motion is adopted, then you follow the new plan. However, if this motion is defeated, then the original motion is unchanged and is still in effect; you would then need a motion to Rescind the original motion (and, as part of the motion to rescind you should also specify what to do with the money already raised).

To say it in other words, your options with the motion to ASPA are to vote Yes to amend the original motion or vote No to leave it alone - you cannot, in one motion, set it up so that a Yes vote would amend it and a No vote would rescind it.

I will agree with Mr. Martin and Mr. Elsman, and go further. If, as you say, the defeat of the proposed motion would mean that

On 4/21/2024 at 9:03 AM, Guest Sally said:

the current design of the project would be terminated and we would need to back out of our agreement with our contractors and decide next steps on building expansion project

then I do not see how the proposed motion can be anything other than a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. You obviously are not following the path laid out in the original motion if you cannot keep working without this new proposed motion, which would have the effect of aligning the original motion with the direction you're actually going in.

The other responders may be able to be as definitive if you share the original and proposed motions (removing any details that would identify your group, of course).

On 4/20/2024 at 10:12 PM, Billy D said:

The Board member in her letter stated that she was addressing the assembly as a resident and not as a town official. .... She indeed was speaking as a town official despite her opening remarks proclaiming otherwise.

Under RONR, at a membership meeting, all members (other than than the chair) participate as members. Officers have no more rights than other members at a membership meeting, but they don't have any fewer rights, either.

On 4/20/2024 at 10:12 PM, Billy D said:

the question here, it is the allowance to read the letter into the debate.

Your point of order should have been to object to the fact that the member was reading from a paper. Once you objected to the individual reading the letter from the official, then the Moderator should have followed RONR (12th ed.) 33:20 ("Request to read papers") and asked the assembly to decide if the member could read the letter. Since the Moderator did not, you could have raised an Appeal from the ruling of the chair. See §24.

On 4/20/2024 at 10:12 PM, Billy D said:

If I were to stand and deliver statements like the ones that she was delivering, there  would be many people returning comments of their own into the mix.

That should not happen and, if it does, should be stopped. If your remarks did not meet the rules of decorum, the he should call you to order. While you have the floor, others should be listening to you, not "returning comments of their own."

I appreciated his wise words here and, more so, his kindness and manner here and when we  corresponded.

I hope, @J. J., that you can convey our condolences to George's family.

On 4/19/2024 at 7:03 PM, J. J. said:

While I agree that this is a potential problem, no one has claimed that this has happened. 

Maybe not in this particular organization ... yet.

But it has definitely occurred in this type of circumstance.

Adding to the list of questions, one for @Josh Martin and @J. J.: how  should a member with an interrupting motion obtain the floor? The problem with alternate recognition methods is that they require recognition by the chair.

Related, does the entire assembly need to be able to know who is seeking recognition or seeking to legitimately interrupt? Or is it adequate that only the chair (± assistants) would be made aware? This would, among other things, prevent a member from realizing that a point of order regarding preference in recognition should be raised.

It's plain English.

In a recent thread, the response is that a main motion is not out of order just because it proposes a bad idea.

Similarly, your disagreement with what a bylaws article says (or the fact that it isn't a good idea) doesn't render it "incomprehensible and uninterpretable."

On 4/18/2024 at 2:50 PM, Angie N said:

Hello,

In our organization the Parliamentarian is an elected position and is also chair of the bylaws committee and member of the executive board.  I understand that the Parliamentarian in general should remain impartial and not participate in debate and voting unless by secret ballot. Does this still apply as a board member and chair of bylaws? If possible,  can someone tell me where I  can find the answer in RONR also? Thank you so much!

It's hard to see how the individual could be effective as a board member or committee chair if required to follow the rules intended for a meeting parliamentarian, which apply to the person who is serving as an advisor to the chair of the meeting (primarily).

On 4/17/2024 at 11:11 AM, Guest Juanita said:

What is the simplest way for us to handle this situation.

The simplest is to recognize that what he has done is to withdraw as a nominee before the election. Using the word "resignation" is inaccurate and confuses matters.

RONR advises that, in this situation, you reactivate the nominating committee to come up with a replacement.

Quote

46:17 A nominating committee is automatically discharged when its report is formally presented to the assembly, although if one of the nominees withdraws before the election, the committee is revived and should meet immediately to agree upon another nomination if there is time.

If there is not enough time, then you go with what you have and also open the floor to nominations, in the hopes that they will nominate a person who will accept the position if elected.

On 4/18/2024 at 10:05 AM, Guest E-Board said:

Can a motion to frivolously spend an organization's funds be ruled out of order for the reason of financial responsibility?

The fact that an idea is very bad (because of financial responsibility or other reasons) is not a reason to rule it out of order. Parliamentary Procedure Protects the Process (TM Pending); it does not protect the organization from following the proper process to make a bad decision.

On 4/17/2024 at 9:12 PM, Joshua Katz said:

I've always wondered about this, too.

I asked here, once, and the response was that the General wrote it that way.

I was trying to give a non-Procrustean response but am unclear what you mean by "both change the agenda and list the changes with the motion to accept"

At what stage are the amendments to agenda being proposed? After it has been distributed but before it has been moved to adopt the agenda? While the motion to adopt the agenda is pending? 

To avoid a future question about the denominator of such a vote (see many other threads), might I suggest

"after the annual fundraiser is held, 50% of the income goes to the Youth fund and 50% goes to the Benevolence fund unless the membership determines another allocation by a two thirds vote. Notwithstanding the above, in 2024 the allocation of income from the annu[a]l fundraiser will be 50% to offset the deficit, 25% to the Youth fund and 25% to the Benevolence fund and in future years."

You might want to specify a deadline for the membership to change the allocation for a particular year, perhaps "... unless the membership, before the fundraiser begins, determines another allocation ..."

Alternatives include

• a specific date
• when the budget is adopted

By the way, is that gross or net income? Whatever the answer is, you may want to specify while you're amending the other stuff.

The motion was in order, but it was not a privileged motion in those circumstances; it was a main motion (21:8) so it was, among other things, debatable.

Isn't this the same question asked here?

I recall that this exact question, with the same group, was dealt with recently. Either you or someone with more time can search for it.

They have it backwards. The chair should rule out of order a motion that conflicts with the bylaws, including a motion to adopt a budget with dues that are higher than authorized in the bylaws. The reference is 10:26(1).

On 4/17/2024 at 11:41 AM, Guest Ryan Clark said:

Does this count as a conflict of interest and should their vote be counted?

Bottom line is that RONR does not remove their right to vote even if they are in a conflict as RONR defines it - RONR only says they should not vote;  if they do vote, their vote must be counted.

You may want to look at any internal rules your organization has adopted regarding conflict of interest, including your own definition (which is likely broader than RONR's) and the restrictions on someone in conflict.

On 4/17/2024 at 10:08 AM, Guest Julianne Duarte said:

is that Committee Chair allowed to call a motion to approve the item?

I just want to ensure clarity, because I'm not certain what you mean by "call the motion," which is not standard language.

As has been stated, RONR presumes that the chair of the committee will be the person to move (or make) the motion arising from the committee's report.

However, the Chair of the meeting (in this case, the board chair) presides over the debate and vote on the motion, and announces the result. Some organizations mistakenly have the committee chair preside, and I wanted to make sure that's not what you meant.

Your chair may be thinking of reports from officers. RONR says that motions arising from reports of officers should not be made by the officer but by another member. I do not know why RONR treats officers differently from committees in this way.

On 4/16/2024 at 4:58 PM, Guest Jackson said:

This line of reasoning would lead me to conclude a proxy vote is not a member that is "present" and the Association failed to meet quorum.

This line of reasoning and this conclusion is what I meant when I said this was an issue of bylaw interpretation. The first principle of bylaws interpretation in RONR is 56:68 (1) Each society decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws. 

So it will be up to your organization to decide on how to interpret this question. Mr. Elsman says it in a different way.

But doesn't that rule protect a minority of >10%, so wouldn't 25:2(7) apply?

On 4/16/2024 at 7:07 PM, Guest Curious2answer said:

Our bylaws do not address this position so there is no set term either.  So that is probably where our problems start on how to handle. 

Well there's your problem.

So close this gap and formalize the committee by amending the bylaws or, if your bylaws allow, adopting a motion to create the committee with the details that you want to specify (e.g. number of members, how members and chair are appointed/elected, terms, etc). When you formalize the committee, formally also appoint the members and chair - nothing says you have to appoint the current people.

Yes, this may be more tedious and time-consuming, but it sure seems a lot fairer than railroading a member through a disciplinary process for no good reason.