Atul Kapur

Doesn't sound like it would, no.

You do have proper business meetings as well, I hope.

On 3/14/2024 at 12:58 PM, Josh Martin said:

It would appear, however, that applicable law may require notice for certain items, specifically "the general nature of any proposed amendment to the declaration or bylaws, any budget changes, and any proposal to remove a director or officer," although I would note I am not an attorney.

Between us non-lawyers, what do you make of this excerpt from, I presume, statute:

On 3/14/2024 at 11:25 AM, Tina R said:

The notice of any meeting shall state the time and place of the meeting and the items on the agenda

I may have missed it in the volume of posts, but I do not see that "the items on the agenda" were provided.

On 3/13/2024 at 10:40 AM, Tina R said:

I'm not an attorney, but I interpret that the key to the 20% is required for the members present PLUS ...

I'm also not an attorney, but I have reviewed enough bylaws to suggest that you are assuming, incorrectly, that these two sections are adjacent. More likely, the first snippet ("Quorum") is in the section about meetings of the association  (that is, meetings of the members) and states the quorum for those meetings.

The second snippet ("Quorum and Vote") appears to be taken from the section on meetings of he board and only states the quorum for board meetings and has nothing to do with quorum at membership meetings.

I have seen quorum requirements for membership meetings that do require the presence of a certain number of officers and/or directors, but in those cases the requirements are in the same section, not divided as here (eg: "Quorum is 20% of the membership including at least one Officer.")

On 3/12/2024 at 10:30 PM, Guest Gwyn said:

but the work has not yet been completed

It won't be able to reverse any work that has been done, but would stop further work (yes, this may seem self-evident, but the question has been asked previously).

Sure, by amending the provisions of the governing documents that refer to that office, while ensuring that any legal requirements are still satisfied.

On 3/12/2024 at 6:48 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

we have often stressed that those who lose an election have no claim to preference in vacancy filling based on their next best vote count.  Are we saying that plurality voting dilutes this objection?

No. We are told that the bylaws override that objection.

It sounds like "quorum" means the number of members who cast a vote in the online election.

On 3/12/2024 at 6:06 PM, Howard Roark said:

Maybe I'll write a monte carlo simulation to get some quantitative results to supplement our intuition.

If only there was a Professor of Mathematics with an interest in parliamentary procedure, RONR, and this forum who could help. 

On 3/12/2024 at 3:43 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

the question of having 100 positions to fill and therefore instructing voters to Vote for up to 100

See the fourth post of this thread which considers this as an election for 50 delegate positions as well as a pre-selection of those who would fill vacancies that may occur in the delegation. Rather than fill each vacancy as it occurs, they are creating a ranked list of alternates who will fill vacancies in the 50-person  delegation.

With this frame, it is definitely reasonable to limit voters to up to 50 choices.

For completeness in this post, a method of breaking ties is strongly recommended, although limiting votes to 50 will, intuitively, lead to fewer ties.

On 3/12/2024 at 12:28 PM, Guest Kathleen Gunning said:

If a committee in a condominium association has a liaison to the Board of Directors can that liaison also be a voting member of the committee since they are owners in the condominium association? 

The answer to this question will be found in the association's governing documents. There is nothing in RONR that would prohibit it. The qualifications for membership on the committee should be listed in your documents, along with any restrictions. If any owner is eligible to beq elected/selected to the committee, and there is no restriction written on a director being a member of the committee, then I would say the person could serve both roles.

On 3/12/2024 at 9:45 AM, J. J. said:

2.  May a special rule, that has application outside of a meeting, be properly included within convention standing rules

No, because the bolded part of your question conflicts with the bolded part of RONR (12th ed.) 59:27

Quote

"The Standing Rules of the Convention,” which, as adopted, will apply to that one convention only. 

The answer to 1 is the same, as it is just a particular example of Q2.

As to your preamble about establishing a standing committee by special order, as it would have application outside of the convention, it could not properly be adopted as part of the convention standing rules.

On 3/10/2024 at 9:18 AM, Atul Kapur said:

I think it would also be reasonable to have each member vote for up to 50 individuals

On 3/10/2024 at 11:24 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Then how are the alternates to be elected?

As a majority is not required to elect here, the top 50 vote getters would be elected delegates and the 51st-100th vote getters would be the alternates.

On 3/10/2024 at 1:23 PM, Howard Roark said:

which option would result in fewer ties among the alternates? 

My quick thought was that limiting voters to 50 choices would result in fewer ties, but as @Josh Martin says, there are likely to be many under either scenario - fewer in the up-to-50 group, still many.

On 3/10/2024 at 5:36 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Speed-knitting contest. 

With all the tying-on and tying-off, ties would be inevitable. Breath holding?

On 3/10/2024 at 1:18 AM, Howard Roark said:

should members be given 100 votes, or only 50 votes?

On 3/10/2024 at 8:19 AM, J. J. said:

I think that each member could still vote for up to 100 individuals

I think it would also be reasonable to have each member vote for up to 50 individuals, as there are significant differences between delegates and alternates, so they could be considered not equivalent (in that mindset, you're just electing 50 delegates and a ranked list of backups).

On 3/10/2024 at 1:18 AM, Howard Roark said:

But is that still appropriate for a 'plurality at large' election?

I don't see a reason why it would not be. Do you have a particular scenario or specific question?

In other words, are convention standing rules "subsidiary, incidental, or other motions that may arise in connection with the transaction of such business or the conduct of the meeting"? RONR (12th ed.) 9:15

I lean to "Yes" as they appear  to be "other motions that may arise in connection with ... the conduct of the meeting."

On 3/8/2024 at 4:11 PM, Will Braswell said:

Can somebody please post the text and page number .... what is RONR's official way to determine if a person or motion etc is rightfully considered to be "out of order" during a meeting?

In case you are not familiar with RONR method of referencing, Mr. Gerber's response guided you to 

- Sections 5, 6, and 7;

- Section 10:26–27; and

- Near the beginning of each of Sections 11-37 you will see a paragraph headed “Standard Descriptive Characteristics” and items 1-3 in each of those paragraphs.

On 3/6/2024 at 6:41 PM, acc said:

It's relevant though. The motion to form the committee was a fiasco and the attorney took the reins.

The minutes record what was done (the sausage), not all the details about the steps that it took (how the sausage was made), and particularly not what was said.

On 3/6/2024 at 10:04 AM, Rob Elsman said:

[Emphasis added]

1) make the subsidiary motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, to modify the usual rules for the number or length of speeches on all pending questions, and 2) before the adoption of the above subsidiary motion, make the higher-ranking subsidiary motion, Previous Question applied to all pending questions.  If the Previous Question is adopted

If the previous question applied to all pending questions is adopted then wouldn't that result in an immediate vote on (the now moot) Limit or Extend Limits of Debate, immediately followed by a vote on the main motion? With no further debate at all.

On 3/5/2024 at 11:18 AM, Guest KDO said:

What happens when someone votes "disagree" on an electronic ballot? Does the voting stop?

Guest KDO, is there a requirement that this vote be unanimous? I have seen that in some statutes regarding decisions made outside of a meeting.

Any qualified person can be nominated from the floor. 

This recognizes that the nominating committee does not have the power to veto any qualified candidate's nomination or election.

On 3/3/2024 at 5:18 PM, Josh Martin said:

While I suppose I can imagine unusual circumstances where this might be the case, "we want to adjourn" is not, in itself, a question of privilege, let alone which justifies interruption of the pending business.

We'll see how the assembly, who wants to adjourn, decides on that appeal 😉

Agreeing with @Josh Martin and @J. J., it is a main motion and, therefore, dependent on whether there is an immediately pending motion on the floor. However, even in that situation, it could be raised as a Question of Privilege relating to the rights and privileges of the assembly.

I sometimes, to avoid this type of confusion between Amend and Amend Something Previously Adopted, refer to the bylaws amendment as "the proposal." It then becomes clear that the meeting can make and consider primary and secondary amendments to the proposal. 

Table II, Motion 3 on pages t6-7 says a majority vote is required to "Adjourn ... in advance of a time already set" (this is a main motion rather than a privileged motion, but the vote required is the same as Motion 2 in that table).

So I differ from Mr. Martin's answer and say a motion to adjourn immediately requires a majority vote in either circumstance.

On 3/3/2024 at 9:43 AM, Josh Martin said:

Generally, a majority vote. A 2/3 vote would be required if a specific time is provided for adjournment and that time has not been reached.

On 2/29/2024 at 6:11 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

if the copying is flawless, it is pointless.

Except in this situation where any exceptions to the majority vote rule need to be specified in the bylaws. I'm not saying that the rule in the OP's bylaws is a good idea, but I've seen in more than one organization, so the exceptions are important.