Shmuel Gerber

Very sorry to hear that. Thank you for letting us know.

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.)

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%.

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. 🙂 (I'm not sure I'm one of those people.)

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.

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 — and I'm not sure it makes much difference.

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)

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.

I hope the 12 members sewing made something nice. 🙂

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.

Me too.

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. 🙂 (It's too bad that Gary Tesser is no longer here to suggest poking one's eyes out after reading section 41.)

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.

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.

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.

OK, then let me try to stretch this a little bit. Would the fact that all the new members of the board had been on the same committee to which the question was referred to change anything? If every member of the board has officially been made aware that the committee will be reporting the motion back at a certain time, then I would say that changes things because no one's rights are being substantially violated. All I'm saying is that there is merit to the idea that when all the business of a board falls to the ground because of a periodic change in membership, a previously made motion to Commit does not, or at least should not, preserve any previous notice of a particular motion. However, I may be all wrong about this.

Should the first "meetings" be "sessions"? Or is the first sentence intended not to apply to two meetings in the same session being held within a quarterly time interval, even if the next session will not be within a quarterly time interval? I don't think that anything is intended here that is different from the rules stated on page 90, line 9 to page 91, line 12. I'm not sure why the word "meeting" is used instead of session, but I don't see a practical difference here. In terms of the ability to postpone a question from one session to another, what matters is the interval between the two sessions — that is, between the end of the last (or only) meeting of the first session and the beginning of the first (or only) meeting of the second session.

Be that as it may, I think in this case I agree with Mr. Elsman that it would be a bit of a stretch to consider the notice given to the previous board of the motion that was then referred to a special committee to be reported to the new board as constituting previous notice to the members of the new board that the motion will be introduced.

Which thread are you referring to?

No. Calling a meeting means scheduling the meeting and letting all the members know about it. Calling a meeting to order means announcing that the meeting is going to be getting started (or restarted after a break) right now.

A better way to think about the amendment is that it is changing what the dollar amount of the donation will be if the main motion is adopted. A proper amendment is not "to donate $750 to the Girl Guides", but rather "to strike out '$500' and insert '$750'". The chair puts the amendment to vote like this: "The question is on striking out '$500' and inserting '$750', so that if this amendment is adopted, the main motion will be 'to donate $750 to the Girl Guides'. Those in favor of striking out '$500' and inserting '$750', say aye. . . . Those opposed, say no." If the amendment is adopted, the chair then says, "The question is on the main motion as amended, 'to donate $750 to the Girl Guides'". Note that an amendment to change the dollar amount is a motion to strike out and insert, not a motion to substitute. The same thing could be accomplished by a motion to substitute, but a vote would still have to be taken on the main motion in its amended form (i.e., as worded in the substitute). A motion to substitute would be "I move to substitute the following for the pending motion: 'To donate $750 to the Girl Guides'". (This is not the same thing as a motion simply "to donate $750 to the Girl Guides", which is not in order when another motion is pending.)

It depends on whether the sections parallel each other and could be taken just as well from the revision as from the substitute. Would the article as a whole make sense if only section 1 were substituted for section 1, and if only the other sections were substituted for the other sections? If the answers are "yes" and "yes", then the motion to substitute can be divided. Otherwise, the desired result will have to be achieved by some form of secondary amendment.

See if RONR (11th ed.), p. 274, ll.20–29 answers your question.

I agree that the phrase "A two-thirds vote of the membership polled via mail/email" is highly ambiguous, but there is nothing about the word "poll" to suggest that it's not an actual vote. RONR has an entire section called "MOTIONS RELATING TO METHODS OF VOTING AND THE POLLS", and it describes motions to "close the polls" and "reopen the polls". It also refers to a "polling place" at a convention. Well, any vote by mail is against the whole idea of Robert's Rules, in the sense that a decision is being made directly by a vote without any opportunity for formal deliberations and possible persuasion among the members. People might have no idea what the ramifications of the amendment are, or what the arguments for it and against it might be. And there is no opportunity for compromise or to improve the language of the amendment without starting the process over again. In a vote (or poll) by (e)mail, the voters can choose to adopt or reject, but not to amend.

The OP didn't say anything about a motion: "The recommendation was Tabled by the Board until one can be found." This motion hasn't died because it hasn't even been born.