Atul Kapur

The motion did not pass at the committee, that is correct. Whether it can be brought before the "whole community board" depends on the board's rules that dictate how motions can be brought before the whole community board. If motions must be brought from a committee, then that requirement has not been met.

Unless your bylaws say otherwise, I agree with Mr. Mervosh.

The hierarchy of governing documents places bylaws above special rules of order.

No, not in RONR. If the requirements of the bylaws were not met, then a Point of Order may be made that the adoption of the motion is null and void. Whether it can be made depends on the details of the motion and your bylaws. Alternatively, it may be possible to give notice to Rescind the adopted motion. Again, it depends on the details of the motion. Depending on the details of the motion, it may be necessary to move a motion to reverse the changes implemented.

You cannot re-write a motion by amending the minutes. The minutes should be corrected if they are in error, but they reflect what actually happened at the meeting. If someone wants to change the wording of a motion which has been adopted, they should make a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted at a future meeting. By the way, who are you referring to when you speak of the "owners" of the motion? Once the presiding officer states the motion (i.e. considers that it is in order and puts it to the assembly for consideration) then the assembly owns the motion. The mover has no ownership after that point.

That is correct. They are still not allowed unless their use is specifically allowed in the bylaws or applicable law or regulation.

Except through the device of Filling a Blank. (Not that I would have recommended using that process in this situation.)

The process is to use the motion Amend Something Previously Adopted. See RONR (12th ed.) 48:15 for details on how to do this for minutes and then § 35 for details on the motion.

No. It occurred under New Business and action was taken ("we asked the property manager to obtain a quote for repairs"), again, under New Business. As stated above (by several of us), the minutes record what happened, not what someone (the secretary or someone else) believes should have happened. It doesn't sound like strata council has made a decision to do or not do at this time. You have said that they directed the manager to obtain a quote. Owners are going to draw the inferences they want and I don't think that the location of the item in the minutes will affect that. In any case, this is not an appropriate rationale to change the minutes from reflecting what actually happened. BTW, are you in B.C.? I don't know of any other jurisdiction that uses the term "strata". [Strata is the term used in British Columbia for condominiums]

The minutes should record what happened, even if that isn't what should have happened.

Perhaps this is the right time for the assembly to consider why it has this three reading rule. Is it to provide previous notice? Is it to ensure that hasty decisions are avoided? Is it because attendance is sporadic so this is a mechanism to ensure that as many members as possible participate in (or are just aware) consideration of the motion? Some other reason other than "we've always done it this way"? Then you can properly consider whether the problem that this rule solves is still a problem and, if so, whether there is a better solution.

No. It becomes the main motion as amended. To expand a bit: a member has the right to speak twice on the same question on the same day. (RONR 12th ed. 4:28). If someone has spoken twice on the main motion, if the motion is then amended, the person does not have the right to speak to the main motion, as amended on the same day. That's because it's not a new main motion (or a new question). [Note: the person had the right to speak to the amendment when it was the immediately pending motion.]

A slight nuance. If there is no vice chairperson, the chairperson designates someone else. The person is "assumed to receive the assembly's approval by unanimous consent unless member(s) then nominate another person(s)" 43:29(b) [emphasis added] So the onus is on the assembly to nominate someone else if they don't like the person who the chairperson designates.

I always read it as following the rule in 12:111(b) "in the order of their probable acceptability, beginning with the least popular choice" So, for 1, 2, and 3: "I want to send it to someone else to deal with -- not a group I sit on and will have to discuss!"

Thanks, J.J.. That is my interpretation, as well (my post above yours originally included similar examples). But Mr. Elsman appears to have a different opinion, which is what I was trying to understand. It's relevant because, using the Gameboy example, once the stock has been purchased, then a later motion to sell the stock would be a new main motion which requires a majority vote for adoption. If the motion were, incorrectly, considered "still in force" then it would require the higher thresholds needed to adopt a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. That is why I am asking Mr. Elsman if he believes that there is a difference between "still in effect" and "still in force".

What is the authority that supports this statement? It's definitely not RONR.

Well, there should be an opportunity for other nominations for the original open position. That gives the assembly the opportunity to elect someone else.

RONR uses the term "still in force" rather than "still in effect," and this influences whether other motions are improper (39:5) I'm not clear on what it means to say that a motion that has been fully executed is "still in effect." What are the implications of that?

Can you provide an example?

If it's done in one motion, that's called Amend Something Previously Adopted. No. RONR (12th ed.) 10:26(4): "Apart from a motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted (35), no main motion is in order that conflicts with a motion previously adopted at any time and still in force" (With my physician hat on, I have to say that the motion's fine as it is. But this forum is about the How, not the What).

This is completely outside of RONR, which says that "A group that attempts to conduct the deliberative process in writing—such as by postal mail, electronic mail (e-mail), or facsimile transmission (fax)—does not constitute a deliberative assembly." (12th ed.) 1:1 footnote 1 (emphasis added). So your organization will need to develop and adopt any particular rules around this practice, including the details that you ask about.

Let me try to be clearer. I was disagreeing with Mr. Martin's opinion that in the situation that notice was given at meeting 1 and meeting 2 was inquorate: I was citing RONR as saying that notice given at meeting 1 is only valid for the next meeting, that is, meeting 2. The notice given at meeting 1 is not valid for meeting 3. As meeting 2 was inquorate, notice could not validly be given at that meeting for meeting 3. But that does not change the fact that meeting 1 was not the preceding meeting for meeting 3, as Mr. Merritt points out. So the notice given at meeting 1 is not valid for meeting 3; the only way remaining to give valid notice for meeting 3 would be to have it sent with the call of meeting 3 (if a call is sent out). BTW, I agree with J.J. that, notice given at meeting 1 would still be valid at an adjournment of meeting 2.

Limiting the answer to the provision of your bylaws (not Florida law), then the number of people doesn't matter. If one person has 30% of the voting interests, that constitutes a quorum (although I'm sure someone will jump to point out that the bylaw says "persons" in plural so a minimum of two persons is required).

I think I disagree. "Previous notice means that notice of intent to introduce the proposal must be given at the preceding meeting (in which case the notice can be oral), or in the call of the meeting at which it is brought up" RONR (12th ed.) 44:10 (emphasis added) There is similar language in 10:44. Why wouldn't the meeting in month 2 count as the next meeting, even if there was no quorum? And, therefore, the notice should be given again for month 3's meeting.

No, that is not correct. If you want the chair and secretary to stay in those positions until the end of the meeting where elections are held -- that is, you want any exceptions -- then your bylaws should state that. Same for the other officers. Many organizations have such a provision to say that officers' terms end at the adjournment of the meeting where their successors are elected.