Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Shmuel Gerber

  • Content Count

  • Joined


About Shmuel Gerber

  • Rank
    @ShmuelGerber on Twitter

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Brooklyn, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Very sorry to hear that. Thank you for letting us know.
  2. But, if I understand correctly, I don't think you're understanding anon's latest post correctly, or you wouldn't say that he's understanding you correctly. (See, this is what happens when you become undone.)
  3. If the rules you've cited are applicable, I would venture to say that if more than half of the ownership is present at the meeting, then the ordinary quorum requirement of 60% (specified in the bylaws, not the declaration) has no bearing on the vote to ratify the budget. If a majority of the ownership wants to reject the budget, they apparently have the legal right to do so, so the quorum for that purpose should be a considered a majority rather than 60%.
  4. Also, some people might say that if a quorum, but less than a majority of the total ownership, is present, then the entire vote is intrinsically irrelevant and should not be taken. πŸ™‚ (I'm not sure I'm one of those people.)
  5. That's an interesting question. I suppose so, except that in this case I'm guessing that, in order to account for weighted votes and/or proxies, the vote would anyway have to be taken by some sort of ballot or roll call, rather than by rising or show of hands.
  6. I disagree with the description of these three possibilities. You seem to be assuming that there is some other voting threshold by which the motion to ratify is "adopted" or "lost" (although you don't say what it is). But actually, in this case, according to the rule quoted, the vote required on a motion to ratify the budget is any vote in which the negative vote is less than a majority of the votes in the association. I don't think it makes sense to say that a motion to ratify is lost when in fact the affirmative side prevails. A somewhat analogous situation under the rules in RONR is a motion to Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes. If such a motion attains a majority vote, but less than a majority of the entire membership, the motion is not "adopted but rejected"; it is simply rejected. You're probably right that the motion should not be considered if there is no quorum present, but I'm not sure β€” and I'm not sure it makes much difference.
  7. Regarding motions that have continuing force and effect, RONR does recommend that adopted special rules of order and standing rules be printed in a booklet together with the bylaws and given to the members. (RONR 11th ed., pp. 14–15, 17, 18)
  8. It says right there in the rule you quoted that the unit owners are to consider ratification of the budget (not rejection of it). So I would assume that any rejection is accomplished by a sufficient vote against a motion to ratify (a.k.a. approve) the budget. Without knowing more about the applicable rules, I also would not assume that amendments to the budget are in order at the ratification meeting.
  9. I hope the 12 members sewing made something nice. πŸ™‚
  10. I think it's pretty clear that when I agree with J. J.'s agreement with Josh Martin, we're all disagreeing with your suspicion. The members who are voting at the polling place are casting valid votes, but that doesn't automatically make them present at the meeting at which the assembly is conducting other business. I would add that it seems like a rather bad idea to have balloting outside the meeting room while a meeting is in progress.
  11. Yes, so the vote required would depend on whether the committee had been instructed to report at a specific meeting or time and this motion is changing that time in advance (by a two-thirds vote, somewhat as on p. 365, ll. 30-35), or the assembly is only now making the committee report a general order by "postponing" it (by majority vote, as on p. 365, ll.27-29) to ensure it doesn't come up before a certain time. That's my theory, anyway. πŸ™‚ (It's too bad that Gary Tesser is no longer here to suggest poking one's eyes out after reading section 41.)
  12. I agree with this analysis if the question is to be treated as a series of main motions. However (having pondered the subject a bit more), I don't think the type of motion presented in this scenario should even be thought of as a series of independent main motions, but rather as akin to a motion to adopt an agenda that conflicts with the existing order of business (or, if the conflict arises from a previously adopted agenda, akin to a motion to amend an adopted agenda), and would simply require the same vote as such a motion.
  13. Having pondered the subject a bit more, I think that whenever the object is to change the time or sequence of consideration of matters whose time or sequence has previously been set by the assembly, a motion to do so will require more than a majority vote, except that the assembly may, by majority vote, postpone or lay on the table whatever is pending or is about to be taken up next.
  14. In the scenario presented, the problem I have is that an attempt is being made to deal with committee reports before the reports of officers, boards, and standing committees have been dealt with. It seems to me that tinkering with the order of business in this fashion would require some kind of suspension of the rules.
  • Create New...