Atul Kapur

On 3/28/2024 at 2:46 PM, J. J. said:

Ironically, if this had been referred to a committee, I would have been more likely to say that it was in order without notice. 

Which is why I still lean towards it being in order. Otherwise this would appear to be an example where form is overriding substance. 

On 3/28/2024 at 4:47 PM, Tad Pritchett said:

The President of the new Board is the same person who is now President of the new Board

I believe you want to change a word here, because otherwise it's repetitious. 

On 3/28/2024 at 4:47 PM, Tad Pritchett said:

They claim, on their own, that the project is not approved and has to be approved by the new Board

On what grounds is this claim being made? It is difficult to comment on its validity without knowing the rationale. For example, is the president saying that the previous vote was just to earmark the funds but didn't actually approve going ahead with the project? That the board needs to vote to approve the contract to implement the project? That the changeover in the board membership requires a new approval? Some other rationale?

And when you answer that, it would likely be helpful to provide more details on exactly what motions were voted on at the board and membership meetings. 

On 3/28/2024 at 3:51 PM, Guest Cee said:

officials who have been elected to represent the will of constituents cannot abstain from voting

It is not a rule in RONR. Many municipal governments (for example) change the basis of voting from majority of those present and voting to majority of those present, which means that abstentions have the same effect as voting 'No'. I have heard this "principle" used as the rationale to explain why that is.

RONR (12th ed.) "47:55 A member of an assembly who acts as its parliamentarian has the same duty as the presiding officer to maintain a position of impartiality, and therefore does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any question except in the case of a ballot vote. He does not cast a deciding vote, even if his vote would affect the result, since that would interfere with the chair’s prerogative of doing so. If a member feels that he cannot properly forgo these rights in order to serve as parliamentarian, he should not accept that position. Unlike the presiding officer, the parliamentarian cannot temporarily relinquish his position in order to exercise such rights on a particular motion."

As there is no identified person or group, it was used to cover any and all circumstancese (it's a very useful word).

Look at the motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted. 

On 3/27/2024 at 5:08 PM, Roz said:

Our bylaws state there are 2 classes: active and community.

I don't understand how your bylaws can specify 2 classes without defining their criteria or how the classification is determined.

On 3/25/2024 at 8:09 PM, Guest Roz said:

The bylaws do not clarify what makes someone an active member other than paying dues.

On 3/27/2024 at 9:14 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Does this indicate that there is now a move afoot to insist that singular pronouns be substituted for plural pronouns?

😀

On 3/27/2024 at 12:05 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I do wish that people would stop messing around with our pronouns

I haven't heard of anyone who wants to mess with your pronouns, so of course you can continue to use the singular for yourself.

I understand that they are seeking to have their preferences similarly respected.

On 3/26/2024 at 6:05 PM, Josh Martin said:

My personal interpretation, however, is that a vote of 2/3 of the entire officers is required for adoption. So it seems that at least six votes in the affirmative would be required - possibly more, as it's not entirely clear what the full size of the board is,

I agree with Mr. Martin and reinforce his point that 2/3 of the entire officers is required, not just 2/3 of those who are present. As an example, if there were 15 officers, the 9 who were present could never have achieved the required 10 vote minimum.

On 3/26/2024 at 4:02 PM, Guest Becca D. said:

they re-voted

What was the pretext for repeating the vote? RONR (12th ed.) 30:6 is clear that "It is never in order to move that the vote on a question be taken a second time by the same method."

The first vote provided a definitive result.

On 3/25/2024 at 11:00 PM, Wright Stuff said:

If it is the intent of the maker of the Substitute Motion to defeat the Primary Motion it is out of order.  The Primary Motion should be acted on and if defeated, then the presiding officer is to imediately grant the floor to the maker of the substitute motion to offer a new motion. 

And where is this quotation taken from?

On 3/25/2024 at 1:59 PM, rrma said:

Ahh. I had gone toward "discipline" as removal from office, and didn't consider intermediate levels that would only need majority vote.

Removal from office only requires a majority vote under two sets of circumstances

(a) if the bylaws specify the term of office as "___ years or until their successors are elected" and previous notice was given; or

(b) if the bylaws specify the term of office as "___ years and until their successors are elected" and the person was found guilty after a trial, then the meeting may vote to remove the person from office by a majority vote.

Under RONR, a member who is delinquent with membership dues retains all their rights, including the right to make nominations.

RONR (12th ed.) 1:13n3 states

"Members in good standing are those whose rights as members of the assembly are not under suspension as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws. A member may thus be in good standing even if in arrears in payment of dues (see 45:1, 56:19)."

As Mr. Lages advises, you should also check your organization's governing documents to see if they say anything about "good standing" or the effect of being delinquent in dues.

On 3/23/2024 at 10:34 PM, Rob Elsman said:

nominee

I believe the OP is asking about the nominator, rather than the nominee.

The Standard Order of Business in RONR includes Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees but this is the second item, after Reading and Approval of Minutes, rather than "In the beginning of our board meetings."
RONR (12th ed.) 41:5

While it is not specified in RONR, a member may make a Request for Information after the report.

Hi Cheryl,

Robert's Rules of Order (RONR) defers to legislation and special rules of order adopted by the organization. Here in Canada, most municipalities are governed by the applicable provincial law (eg: Ontario's Municipal Act) and then usually adopt their own special rules (in Ontario, this is called the Procedural By-law). Most municipalities specify a parliamentary authority in their procedural by-law but only in situations when the law and procedural by-law are silent. Many use RONR, but there are several that use others.

RONR, itself, does not require a recorded vote unless the assembly itself orders one. I know of some municipal and similar councils in Canada that require a recorded vote for all final decisions, but it is not widespread.

You mentioned "tradition." RONR uses the word "custom" and the rules of order, special rules and the rules in RONR, supersede custom.

On 3/22/2024 at 1:26 PM, Josh Martin said:

This interpretation is not consistent with my experience of what people believe this phrase means

Our experiences differ. 

In case it helps, another P.A. (AIP Standard Code) defines a "majority of the quorum" as "a majority of those present and voting, assuming a quorum is present, with the further stipulation that the affirmative vote must include a majority of the number required for a quorum."

If you replace majority with ¾, you get the same result as your option #4.

I don't know about strange. Sloppy, yes, but unfortunately not as rare as you'd hope.

So, from here you can raise a point of order that the added sentence was never properly adopted and should be struck out. And you could appeal the ruling if it goes against you.

If that doesn't work, then you can move to amend the bylaws (following requirements for notice, etc). 

On 3/19/2024 at 3:12 PM, Guest Doc said:

must we ask members to vote for five of the six individuals? 

That one. Your bylaws, you tell us, specify five individuals on the board. What authority allows anyone (committee, board, etc) to ignore the bylaws?

Edited to add: see Mr. Novosielski's reply, above, with more details about how to conduct your elections.

Motions can be referred to a committee. The purpose is usually to have the committee review the motion in depth and make recommendations to the assembly.

On 3/17/2024 at 11:08 AM, Wright Stuff said:

Maybe you could describe ONE example you’ve seen. 

The first rule of Reconsider and Enter Club is ...

😀

On 3/17/2024 at 1:32 PM, Josh Martin said:

First, and most importantly

Actually, you're second on that point, Gary Josh 😉

You do not, normally adopt or approve committee reports. The committee makes its report, members may have questions for the reporting member (through a Request for Information), then you thank the reporting member and move to the next item of business.

And, for certainty, there is no motion to "receive" the report.

If the committee has recommendations in its report, then they should be made as motions, which are processed as any other motion (except that a second is not required).

On 3/15/2024 at 5:56 PM, Guest Jacky said:

Can the Board count the persons who attended last meeting but do not attend next meeting? Also if a proxy holder does not attend new meeting does the proxy not count even if it was submitted to the Secretary in advance?  

These are questions, with some interesting details, that you need to ask a lawyer who has experience with the HOA laws in your jurisdiction. 

On 3/15/2024 at 8:11 AM, Josh Martin said:

I'm curious as to what reading you believe would accomplish this.

That the bylaws interpret the Articles of Incorporation as being specific to election by the membership, rather than including appointment by the board to fill a vacancy. I'm not saying that I like this interpretation, but it is not unreasonable.

In the end, the organization, itself, is the body that needs to decide if this bylaw provision is in conflict with the Articles. I would also advise that they consult an attorney experienced in the relevant law.

On 3/14/2024 at 8:54 PM, Tomm said:

I'm wondering if the 6 year limit stated in the Articles of Incorporation takes precedence or does the Bylaw simply expand on the original rule stated in the Articles? 

Both.

The Articles of Incorporation take precedence over the bylaws. RONR (12th ed.) 2:7 and 2:5

The two provisions can be read together in a way that doesn't create a conflict so that should be the way they're read. 56:68(2)