Atul Kapur

Any non-member in attendance has observed the alleged offence. So, while the assembly may decide to go into executive session, why should it be automatic?

Many have just moved to electronic voting with "clickers" for every vote. You have a system where the software can assign the clicker given to the particular person the number of votes they carry (their one plus the number of proxies they have). I have seen one meeting where they couldn't assign a different number of votes to each clicker, so one member was given 30 clickers. By the end of the meeting, he got pretty efficient at voting - reminded me of those very experienced bingo players who'd play dozens of cards at the same time.

Have you considered have you considered altering the agenda so that the important business is done before the exodus occurs?

Did the president declare a result?

Under Robert's, most committees do not keep formal minutes. "In small committees, the chairman usually acts as secretary, but in large ones and many standing committees, a secretary may be chosen to keep a brief memorandum in the nature of minutes for the use of the committee." RONR (12th ed.) 50:24 Which body is approving the minutes of the committee meeeting? Is it the committee itself or the board that the committee reports to? Neither is truly proper as per RONR, but the second is the more egregious error.

You are correct, interpretation of the Ohio Revised Code is not "a RONR thing." It is a legal interpretation thing, requiring a lawyer.

Ask them to show you where it says that an officer whose term is expiring is automatically assumed to be a nominee for re-election (which is what I'm inferring is the alternative they're claiming is true). There is nothing in RONR that presumes that the incumbent is different than any other eligible person.

I agree, but in the interest of more precisely drawing the boundary: selecting a particular vendor or signing a contract with that vendor would not be permissible. The committee could recommend a vendor.

Presumably the resolutions are that you appoint person X to position Y. If you have not completed the process for 3 of the 8-10 appointments, then those 3 resolutions are presumably incomplete. If that is the case, then they should be pulled from the consent calendar before a motion to adopt it is even made, because they are incomplete. Would that work?

Not generally, no. It depends what your bylaws say

Your "obviously the only possible next step in the logical path" may be someone else's Odyssey.

I believe Mr. Honemann was implying that saying "$400 rather than $500" is specifically amending the original.

I agree that suspend the rules is a very good solution. A resolution is just a more formal way of presenting a motion, so I do not see why you treat them differently.

Sure you could. A motion that has been postponed indefinitely is only killed for the current session. Nothing prevents it from being moved again at the next session (which usually means the next meeting, unless the board's rules define session as more than one meeting, as some do).

Sounds like there was at least two errors made. In any event, it appears that your current situation is that the activities to implement Model A are suspended. The model in motion B is not relevant because it was defeated. The supporters of Model A can make a motion at a future meeting to resume implementation of Model A. There is no need to use Reconsider because this is a separate session. This would just be a new main motion. If this motion is defeated, then the question is whether you have to have a model? If not, then nothing needs to be done and you can continue with neither A nor B in effect. If you must have a model in place, then hopefully someone can make a proposal that the majority can support. At this future meeting, Model B could be proposed again ("renewed").

RONR mentions the concept at 13:17 and strongly discourages it. "The anomalous title 'co- chairman' should be avoided, as it causes impossible dilemmas in attempts to share the functions of a single position."

I agree with Mr. Martin that While Mr. Elsman may be correct that, in sad reality, the vast majority of I disagree that they are impersonal, as they are composed of persons.

RONR (12th ed.) 47:10

First, tha Annual Meeting is presumably a meeting of the members. So all members of the HOA get a chance to approve the minutes unless that has been delegated to the board or a committee. So, assuming you're a member of the HOA, I'm not certain why it would matter whether you were on the board or for how long.

Yes, even if you have held nominations at a previous meeting. "Unless the bylaws or a special rule of order provides otherwise, the chair must call for further nominations at the session at which the election is held even if nominations were called for at a previous session." RONR (12th ed.) 46:6

Tying this back to the OP, I don't believe that an inquorate meeting is capable of authorizing such a thing. The 2021 meeting could have, and hopefully the 2023 meeting will be able to, as well.

As far as we know, yes (not having read your governing documents).

True, a write-in is not nominated at all. But RONR has no requirement that voters are limited to voting for nominated candidates - they can vote for anyone they wish. Do your bylaws state that voters may only vote for nominated candidates?

Maybe, maybe not. If the law says email is authorized despite any provision otherwise in the bylaws, or that email notice is considered or deemed equivalent to notice by postal mail, then it supersedes RONR and the bylaws. If it just allows for email notice, then it would still need to be in the bylaws, otherwise RONR prevails.

Neither is the president, unless the bylaws say so.