Atul Kapur

Quick and dirty answer: whatever was laid on the table, if ignored, will die of neglect at the adjournment of the next meeting.

But I thought that you had said, correctly

Thank you! I was beginning to worry that those words only appeared in my copies.

Then they should have attended the meeting. To put @Gary Novosielski's reply in other words: the boundaries for scope of notice are A - the current status (1250), and B - the proposal (500). It is reasonable to anticipate that the outcome of the meeting will be between (and including) those two boundaries. It is not reasonable to anticipate that the motion will not be amended at all so that the only possible outcomes are either of the two boundaries.

You have not provided any language about what happens when there is a perceived or alleged violation of your Code of Conduct. It appears that you will need to follow any processes within or, if there is nothing there, that you will need to follow the disciplinary process detailed in Chapter XX of RONR.

Maybe it's because I switched off my mind during the long weekend up here in Canada, but I'm not sure how the answer to this question affects the response to the OP's question regarding matters on the agenda that were not yet reached.

I read it as saying the president or the vp or the board members or any combination of the same.

Has the board granted that authority to the secretary? No one else can.

To be clear, I was only providing the citation in response to the question I did not assess at all whether the excerpt of the PPM assisted or damaged @M Goodman's arguments and I am very happy to accept and recommend Mr. Martin's commentary on that.

From your description, I am concerned that your group is using Previous Question very differently than as described in RONR and I am not clear which vote you are referring to: is it a vote on whether to order the previous question or the vote on the motion under discussion? (What raises this concern is the fact that it requires a 2/3 vote to order the previous question so the withdrawal is unnecessary as the group that would support the withdrawal could easily defeat the previous question). I have seen several groups do it this way, so please let me know if that is what you do: Debate is underway on Main Motion X. A member yells out "Question!" or "I call the question!". Another member says, "Second!". The Moderator says, "Question has been called." and then takes the vote on Main Motion X. If that is the way that your group does it, then you need to have a special rule for that; otherwise, this contravenes RONR, ("Calls of 'Question!' by members from their seats are not motions for the Previous Question and are disorderly if another member is speaking or seeking recognition." 16:20) Under RONR the process is: A member is properly recognized and says, "I move the previous question." Another member says, "Second!". The Moderator says, "The previous question is moved and seconded." The chair may explain the motion if needed. "Those in favor of ordering the previous question on Main Motion X ..."

What, exactly and word-for-word, do your governing documents say about the vote threshold? Include the amount and the denominator. Does it really say 51%? If it clearly refers to the number of votes cast, then 51% of 11 votes cast is 5.61. 6 is more than that.

I cannot say without examining your governing documents and, likely, the law that applies to your hoa (this is not an offer). You probably will want to have your situation, including the governing documents and the events that transpired, reviewed by a lawyer experienced in hoa law in your jurisdiction and, even if your PM is such a person, may be more confident with someone who is not directly involved.

First, do your bylaws allow the membership to vote by mail / email? If not, under what authority authorized that vote to increase the size of the board? Second, who normally elects the directors? I assume that it's the general membership. So why would the election of these 2 extra directors be any different? Because there is a difference between voting to create new positions on the board (assuming that this was done properly) and electing the people to occupy those positions. I'm actually quite surprised that anyone would think that the membership, by voting to increase the size of the board, automatically abdicated their right to decide who their directors should be.

RONR (12th ed.) 49:5 "... the board has only such power as is delegated to it by the bylaws or by vote of the society’s assembly referring individual matters to it."

I don't believe that any suspension is necessary. RONR (12th ed.) 57:6 just says that a revision "should be considered seriatim" [emphasis added] rather than must. So, at any time while the revision is being considered seriatim, a member could move that it be considered as a whole/ The alternative to considering seriatim is to consider as a whole. See 28:5 and 28:11.

That's the thing. It's not clear at all that the assembly is actually approving the agenda, rather than just acquiescing to the executive committee's decision -- howsoever it is making that decision. What vote is required will, I believe, require a careful review and analysis of their Handbook and how it relates to or differs from RONR.

If it works for your group, it's fine. So, getting back to your original post, have someone move to amend the agenda to fix a certain time to adjourn. There might be a question whether that would take a majority vote or a 2/3 vote.

I was asking what actually happens. How does the executive committee accept or adopt the general meeting agenda? Is there a formal motion? The reason I ask is to clarify whether the executive committee is actually "accepting" the agenda, as per your handbook and how clear it is that this is happening. The additional clips of your handbook raise more questions regarding when and to whom a petition is presented. And is there an opportunity for the general meeting to amend the agenda? I'm not sure I see one if the meeting doesn't have an item of business to consider, possibly amend, and adopt it. So one question: if a member wanted to amend the agenda at the general meeting, when and how would they do so?

RONR does not allow members to do that during regular debate. RONR also does not allow non-members to participate at all, so you will need to create your own rules around the public comment section; you can decide to allow it or follow the RONR example. I suggest the latter.

Thank you for providing this new information, which is different from the previous statement, "the agenda, it's not formally adopted by the body in our procedures, but the adoption is certainly implied by the presentation." That previous statement made it appear that you followed the agenda as a matter of custom, which is overridden by the parliamentary authority. You imply that this handbook has the status of a special rule of order. If that is accurate, it would be superior to RONR. But do expect some comments that it is unusual to have the executive committee set the agenda with no opportunity for the membership to have input. One question: does the executive committee formally adopt or accept the agenda?

This is a common practice but not supported by RONR, which specifically shows in an example that the chair just calls once. The principle is that the chair should not be hasty in closing nominations but should allow everyone eligible to make a nomination to actually do so. In my opinion, the question of how to ensure that is only a big deal if someone wants to make it a big deal. However, if someone does, the reference is RONR (12th ed.) 46:20 (note the pauses to give members the opportunity to nominate).

It doesn't sound like you adopted the agenda at all. RONR (12th ed.) 41:62 says "n some organizations, it is customary to send each member, in advance of a meeting, an order of business or agenda, with some indication of the matters to be considered under each heading. Such an agenda is often provided for information only, with no intention or practice of submitting it for adoption." [emphasis added] The bolded portion appears to describe your situation. 41:62 goes on to say "Unless a precirculated agenda is formally adopted at the session to which it applies, it is not binding as to detail or order of consideration" So if you want to be able to fix the time of adjournment, you could formally adopt the agenda at the beginning of the meeting.

The alternative is to install everyone else at the usual time (the installation meeting) and install the one or two others at the following meeting. As you note, the timing of the installation makes no difference in their time of taking office, under RONR.

If I recall correctly, under the legislative framework in operation here the Committee of the Whole is allowed to meet in executive session while the assembly itself is not.

Hi @Janis Arnold. In a neighbouring province, we often have the CotW convene its own regular meeting, one half hour before the regular meeting of the board. This works within the legislative framework for those boards, so you will likely want to check yours, first.