Atul Kapur

Hi Janis, I believe that the school boards' rule derives from (a) the House of Commons, where the Deputy Speaker usually presides over Committee of the Whole, combined with (b) the fact that the Board itself is not allowed to meet in camera (= executive session) but CotW is, so many Boards understand the two terms (CotW and in camera/executive session) as synonymous.

If you're going to go to the trouble of changing the bylaws, you could change it to allow the Chair to alter the schedule, with proper notice. This is likely more practical than trying to predict a month ahead of time whether there will be any business for the next meeting.

The only thing that would resemble this in any way is unanimous or general consent. See RONR (12th ed.) 4:58-63, particularly 4:59 where the presiding officer may ask "Is there any objection to [the proposed motion or action]?" But if there is any objection (even just one), then the motion should be processed as any other, including the proper method of putting the question to a vote.

Just FYI, one province has that rule in the law for its city and town councils. I do not know their rationale for legislating it that way, which is the opposite of the rest.

Okay, but neither what Guest Michael Ropp nor @Bruce Lages describe violates that fundamental principle.

I didn't read anything in the OP to suggest that the motion was improperly laid on the table or that the intent was to postpone definitely to the next meeting. But, now that the topic of postpone definitely has been raised: the notice given originally is adequate for the postponed motion when it is taken up at the next meeting.

Probably 2/3. I was going to say 50:50, but that notion failed.

Just print out this post and use it as proof that you have publicly declared that you are not impartial and therefore must vacate the chair. 😉

I'm not certain that this settles the matter. Yes, Each lot owner shall have one vote per lot owned, but the specific provision on amendments does not call for a vote but requires Signatures on an instrument and votes are not the same thing. I suggest you get the advice of a lawyer expert in the relevant law in the relevant jurisdiction (I make no suggestion on whether your attorney is such a person nor on whether you want to get a second opinion).

I would suggest that the first step be to arrange for an educational session / workshop on the rules for the entire committee. This would, ideally, be led by a professional parliamentarian (so that you are actually educated on the rules really say and mean). You do not need to create a committee to do that - just make a motion to have an educational workshop led by a professional parliamentarian (if you wish, you can add details regarding the date and time, location, duration, maximum budget, etc). The Rules Committee would not normally have the power to do any of these things itself; it would only be able to make recommendations to the County Executive Committee, so why not do it directly?

Well, the president and secretary are the two officers required for a meeting, and they are usually the same for the board and the general membership meeting. Once the motion is stated by the chair (or "on the floor") it is owned by the meeting, not the person or group who proposed it. So it does not matter who is the presiding officer when the motion is being debated, because the presiding officer should appear impartial. In fact, if the old/current president cannot be impartial, they should step aside and let someone else chair the debate. Presuming that the old/current board are also members of the assembly, any one of them could have made the motion for their proposals and, that way, could have presented them. But it also sounds like the board members have been taking or been given too much latitude if they are doing presentations and "handling" debate.

Do their bylaws actually require ballot votes? I don't see that in the OP. If this is not actually a requirement, there are more options available to the organization.

This is common in business and corporate meetings. It may just be that the new president is used to that sort of setting and unfamiliar with parliamentary procedure. A copy of RONR - In Brief would be a friendly way to introduce it to him (assuming he's willing to learn and this hasn't already been tried).

The American Institute of Parliamentarians has been doing it's annual membership meetings this way for a few years. One of the toughest, but most important items, is that members in person and those attending electronically should have the same opportunities to seek recognition. At AIP, rather than having two separate queues and trying to combine them, everyone goes through the same process.

Consider whether the HOA can create a fining committee with a membership of nine (or twelve or fifteen or ...) and set quorum at three (unless there is a requirement in a superior document that quorum has to be higher). If you wanted, you could put in further restrictions regarding quorum, such as saying that the chair must be present and one of the three. All members of the committee would need to be sent notice of all meetings, but this would increase the odds of achieving quorum. The chair could also use Doodle or similar scheduling software. This may require an amendment to your bylaws, but it may resolve your situation.

The exact wording of, at least, the first motion would be helpful to determine the duration of its effect.

As stated somewhere elsewhere than RONR, they may very well be different. This is a forum on RONR. What you call RONR's "very bad habit of blurring those lines when it shouldn't" could just as easily be considered a different mindset and approach.

An alternative is to appoint, rather than a person, a committee to review the recording and produce draft minutes to present to the next meeting for approval.

A member does not have the right to make a frivolous motion. The committee does not have the authority to suspend this rule, so a member's motion to do so is frivolous.

I agree with @George Mervosh and @Josh Martin. Speaking of thr collective rights of members of a committee (specifically, the right to suspend the rules) is a red herring. 1:4 applies to members of an assembly. A committee is not an assembly (1:9, 50:1, and 1:24 which states that committees are "subordinate instruments of an assembly,")

Okay. First, nothing you have shared suggests that the president has the power to appoint anyone as sergeant-at-arms. So your organization needs to interpret whether (a) "absence or disability" includes a permanent absence (due to the death of the officer), or (b) the resulting vacancy is something different and the "absence or disability" provision does not apply because it only refers to temporary absences. If (a), then the VP assumes the duties as your bylaws state; if (b) then the vacancy-filling provisions quoted above by @Josh Martin are followed. The organization is the body that is responsible for interpreting the bylaws and resolving the ambiguity, RONR lists Principles of Interpretation to help guide the organization in the process of making that decision, see RONR (12th ed.) 56:68. The first is that "The interpretation should be in accordance with the intention of the society at the time the bylaw was adopted, as far as this can be determined." This is probably the most important one for this situation, and a majority vote decides the question.

The question is whether it is within scope of notice to change the date from March to December. Think of the following question to help answer that question: Would a reasonable member who saw the original motion (with the original date) and decided not to attend the meeting be surprised to see that the motion was adopted with the different date? If that person would not be surprised, then it is likely within scope and the amendment and amended motion can be voted upon at the same meeting — If that person would be surprised, it's likely outside of scope and the amendment should be ruled out of order. Since this is a new event, I believe that the scope of notice is broader than if the motion was trying to move a current event. But my opinion is not determinative. The decision on whether the amendment is within scope is made by the presiding officer. A member who disagrees can appeal from the decision of the chair. If the appeal is seconded then the meeting will vote on whether to uphold or reverse the chair's decision. It takes a majority vote against upholding the decision to reverse it. The presiding officer could also leave the decision to the assembly to decide, by a majority vote.

The easy answer is that the person who passed away is and will be absent from now on. But it appears that someone is trying to draw the distinction that 'absent' is only meant to indicate a temporary absence, as opposed to a 'vacancy' which is permanent, at least until the end of the term. This would be a question of interpretation of your bylaws, which only your membership has the authority to do. But, we can try to help by advising. First, do your bylaws say anything about vacancies of office? Please provide the exact quotes of the bylaws regarding absences or vacancies.

Changing it from March to December could be considered outside the scope of notice. The boundaries of scope of notice are (i) the current situation, and (ii) what is proposed. The usual example is dues or membership fees. Say that the current fee is $100. Your organization distributes a proposal to amend the bylaws to make it $125. At the meeting, any amendment to set it between $100 and $125 can be considered and adapted, and you can vote on the amended proposal at the same meeting. Any amendment to reduce the fee below $100 or increase it above $125 would be ruled out of order and not considered at all. So in your example, I would say it depends on what the current situation is. Is this a proposal to add a new meeting? To change the month of a meeting that is currently happening?

Yes.