Atul Kapur

The letters should be sent by the directors wishing to resign and most appropriately be addressed to the Secretary. The Secretary would then report that they've received a letter of resignation. There is no motion to "receive" correspondence, or a committee report, or anything else. Then the motion "That [name]'s resignation be accepted," is moved, seconded, considered, and voted on. The letters should be filed with the other official correspondence and records of the organization.

You don't say if the bylaws have any rules on how vacancies are filled. If you are incorporated, then there are likely rules in the law that applies to your organization that apply. If the law and your bylaws are truly silent, then RONR states that resignations must be accepted. It would probably be best to accept the resignations one-by-one and fill the resulting vacancy before moving on to the next resignation. You could start by having the board fill the one vacancy. It would proceed as follows, with each step being a separate motion. If you have X, Y, and Z who wish to resign and A,B,C, and D who are willing to step up: 1) Appoint A to fill the vacancy. 2) Accept X's resignation. 3) Appoint B to fill the vacancy caused by W X's resignation. 4) Accept Y's resignation. 5) Appoint C to fill the vacancy caused by Y's resignation. 6) And so on... This way, there is no "old board" and no "new board," and you avoid the risk of having fewer than three members on the board at any time. This can all be done at one meeting; it would be better to state in the call of the meeting that you will be considering resignations and filling any resulting vacancies. I would avoid the "informal action" route because the membership of the board will change with every resignation and appointment, so you would need to be very careful about which board members' signatures you need on which written consent form.

Yes, he is the vice president until his resignation is effective.

24:3(2)(a) interrupts the cycle: "if a point of order is raised while an appeal is pending, there is no appeal from the chair’s decision on this point of order, although the correctness of the ruling can be brought up later by a motion covering the case;"

My understanding is that the Mover can vote against his motion but cannot speak against it. Guest Brad Perot, the point is that there is no assumption on how the Mover or the seconder will vote, so they will need to vote or abstain when called upon.

Thank you.

The language on p. vii that begins, "This Twelfth Edition supersedes all previous editions and is intended automatically to become the parliamentary authority . . . " also appears (with the correct edition number) on p. vii of the 11th edition and p. II of the 10th. In which edition did this language first appear? Prior to that, was there another rule or was this (or similar) language felt to be simply an explicit statement of what was previously considered understood?

I was trying to be subtle and encourage you to search the answer yourself, as this is not truly a RONR question. But, since you've asked twice and it appears to be important to you... If the same person has been elected to two different offices, Secretary and Treasurer, then the person should be identified as the "Secretary & Treasurer". If this is one office with duties of both, then the name used in the bylaws should be used. If you are asking which is the correct punctuation mark for this position, my research indicates "Secretary-Treasurer" is better than "Secretary/Treasurer" as the slash is usually used to indicate alternatives or substitute for the word "or".

I believe that the reason is found the rules of grammar and punctuation, but that is beyond this forum.

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.