ronwass

Thank you all for the thoughtful responses. Being able to find knowledgeable people and get advice on an obscure topic is one of the absolute best things about the Internet. If y'all ever want music technology advice, there are several excellent forums about different software platforms. I contribute to many of them.

Thank you. Yes. Agree completely. I really appreciate your time. The membership has made clear they wanted the new amendment. I won't dwell on the old motion anymore.

Sorry. The master property list, as part of the bylaws, was always subject to amendment. The board could always have put forward to the membership a proposed amendment that said something like, "shall X property be added to the master list." The old motion said something like "the board can not propose new members." putting it in conflict with the existing clear right of the board to propose bylaw amendments. Didn't it?

Thank you very much for the intelligent insight. To clarify: The new amendment was properly passed by the MEMBERSHIP, with proper notice, discussion, resolution, and 2/3 affirmative vote, and puts in place a clear procedure for expanding membership. The board, or anyone, can now propose new properties as members. To become actual new members they must then be subject to a 2/3 affirmative vote by the MEMBERSHIP, and be added to the master list of properties as described and contained in the, you guessed it, bylaws. The board does not have the power to add new members by itself. One further thought: The master list was always in the bylaws and subject to amendment. We have now added this further clarification. Now that I think of it, what the old motion attempted to do was to prevent the board from bringing up any amendment to the bylaws that would affect the master list. The amendment procedure was always very clear and could not have been superseded by that motion, making it null and void. Is that logical? Thank you again.

PS: In order to avoid this problem of ill considered motions adopted in the heat of a high emotional discussion, we also have since passed a bylaw that instigates a time period before a final vote can be taken on substantive motions or amendments allowing people to think things through.

Hello experts. Thank you for allowing me to join this forum. My homeowners association several years ago passed a motion that forbid the board of directors from entertaining or instigating any future motions and/or discussion on the topic of bringing in new properties as future members. I thought this out of order at the time, because it was a motion in the negative, and also, it just seems out of order to prevent further discussion on such a broad topic. It was a motion brought in the heat of emotion, and it was made before the membership really was able to think through the ramifications. You can imagine that there might be substantive reasons an association wants to expand. This year, after careful thought, the homeowners association passed a by-law that puts in place a procedure for bringing in new properties. As a workaround, the bylaw amendment was brought in by a committee of regular members, (not the board) which we are able to do. Of course there is one disgruntled member who thinks the bylaw is out of order because of the previous motion, which, to clarify, was not an actual bylaw. My questions: Was the original motion indeed out of order? If so, why specifically? Can a body move to prevent all future discussion on a general issue? (As opposed to vote down a specific motion.) Does the current bylaw supersede that old motion and make it moot? Thank you so much in advance for any enlightenment. Ron