Shmuel Gerber

Fine. Let's let it go at that. 🙂 Or Mr. Lillie can revert to using the 10th edition of RONR, which states, "The personal approval of a proposed action obtained separately by telephone or individual interview, even from every member of a board, is not the approval of the board, since the members were not present in one room where they could mutually debate the matter. If action on such a basis is necessary in an emergency, it must be ratified at the next regular board meeting in order to become an official act of the board."

This is not a question about parliamentary procedure, but about your organization's own specific rule. Only you (collectively) can decide what the rule means and how it applies. Start by reading the actual wording of the complete rule as stated in the bylaws.

Declarations are high-level legal documents that are attached to the property, a.k.a. a master deed. You may be interested in these articles by Jim Slaughter: http://www.jimslaughter.com/Community-Associations-and-the-Parliamentarian.cfm http://www.jimslaughter.com/Community-Association-Statutes-and-Procedures-.cfm

I think that either the rules regarding the due date, amount of late penalty, and grace period for assessments must be included in the bylaws, or the bylaws must specifically empower the board to adopt such rules. A rule in the bylaws that merely empowers the board to collect assessments does not give the board the authority to impose late penalties or to allow grace periods for bylaws-imposed penalties.

This description of what happened is so vague that I don't think any of the replies given so far actually addressed the situation. If I'm reading this correctly, the assembly was planning the manner in which a vote will be taken at some special meeting in the future, not at the present meeting. It's unclear what type of "other motions" there were "based on the voice vote plan". Until the OP tells us more specifically what happened, I don't think we can be of great help, but I would note that it is improper for the assembly at one session to adopt procedures (or a "plan") that will apply to a future session, other than by the adoption of special rules of order.

You mean "advance notice," which RONR calls "previous notice," which is actually the only kind of notice of a motion there is.

I assume you are defining "included in" as "separate from but published/printed together with" Otherwise it could be interpreted as you saying this type of policy should be a provision in the bylaws. Which I don't think you mean to say. Well, if that's what he meant, I think he'd be right -- it would be appropriate for rules regarding the due date, amount of late penalty, and grace period for assessments to be specified in the bylaws.

The passage you quoted gives the answer: because the witnesses will probably decline to testify, and there is no way to compel them to. So the alternatives are to decide the case without obtaining the relevant facts, or to allow the investigators to testify as to what (purportedly) knowledgeable persons have told them. Let me ask you this: Do you ever read a newspaper to find out what is happening in the world? How much of what is printed there is anything other than hearsay? You probably take the information for what it's worth (i.e., with a grain of salt), and the assembly will do the same with hearsay evidence in a disciplinary trial.

The correct spelling is "yea", but I like the idea of yay votes. 😀

Actually, a member who has the floor in debate is allowed to yield for a question (RONR, 11th ed., p. 295): If information is desired of a member who is speaking, the inquirer, upon rising, may use the following form instead: MEMBER A: Madam President, will the member yield for a question? Or: MEMBER A: Mr. President, I would like to ask the gentleman [or "the member"] a question. If the speaker consents to the interruption, the time consumed will be taken out of his allowed time. The chair therefore asks if the speaker is willing to be interrupted, and if he consents, directs the inquirer to proceed. Although the presiding officer generally remains silent during the ensuing exchange, the inquiry, the reply, and any resulting colloquy are made in the third person through the chair. To protect decorum, members are not allowed to carry on discussion directly with one another. An inquiry of this kind may also be for the purpose of reminding a speaker of a point to be made in argument, or it may be intended to rebut his position; but it must always be put in the form of a question. This is mentioned again in the section on debate that Mr. Mervosh cited (p. 388; footnote omitted): Rights in regard to debate are not transferable. Unless the organization has a special rule on the subject, a member cannot yield any unexpired portion of his time to another member, or reserve any portion of his time for a later time—that is, if a member yields the floor before speaking his full ten minutes, he is presumed to have waived his right to the remaining time.* If a speaker yields to another member for a question (Request for Information, pp. 294–95), the time consumed by the question is charged to the speaker.

I think you're talking in circles now. Earlier you wrote: 'In the second one, the is "Treasurer, we think you engaged in graft, but we are not going to try to prove it or penalize you." ' Obviously, in practically all societies, graft is an action by the treasurer that would tend to injure the organization, and any insinuation that the treasurer has engaged in it would bring harm to his or her reputation. The fact that the society does not choose to bring charges does not change the nature of the offense or the implied accusation. A motion to censure the treasurer for engaging in graft, when unsupported by an investigation and trial, clearly runs afoul of the rule that "A member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground." Your argument that the motion of censure's lack of a charge makes it OK is exactly backward. The fact that no charges -- accompanied by a fair disciplinary process -- are brought is exactly what makes such a motion not OK.

This is a good point. It's difficult to have an informative discussion here when motions offered as examples are so poorly worded.

And you've expressed that distinction several times, in this thread and others. But it's a distinction without a difference, and does not give the assembly permission to insinuate an unproven allegation or assumption that a member has done something bad. First of all, a motion that says nothing other than "That we confirm Member 2's action taken in excess of his instructions" would probably be out of order because it doesn't say what it's talking about. Second, assuming the motion does say what action it is referring to, it would be quite strange to confirm an action where there is some question as to whether the action took place. Since presumably the facts are not in dispute, there are no "allegations against his good name" being made against Member 2 (even if the motion is amended to one of censure), but merely the assembly's expression of its opinion regarding actions he is known to have taken in the name of the organization.

I agree with Mr. Martin. It is out of order for the assembly to express the "opinion", without any prior investigation by a committee, that one of its members has engaged in graft. The statements in RONR that "Except as may be necessary in the case of a motion of censure or a motion related to disciplinary procedures (61, 63), a motion must not use language that reflects on a member's conduct or character, or is discourteous, unnecessarily harsh, or not allowed in debate (see 43)." (p. 344) and "It is also possible to adopt a motion of censure without formal disciplinary procedures." (p. 643n) do not give an assembly carte blanche to violate the rule that "A member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground." (p. 656) Calling an allegation, or any other statement that implies that a specific event occurred, an "opinion" doesn't make it proper. Frankly, I'd be surprised to learn that anyone here other than J.J. believes it does.

Thanks. We try to be clear whenever possible. 🙂

I think the word you're looking for is "cursorily".

But the same motion was not renewed; it was a different motion. However, I agree that in this case, the chair probably had good reason to rule the third attempt dilatory. But there should have been no debate on the Appeal, especially since it involved an undebatable motion.

But when some board members serve in particular offices, such as president or secretary, etc., and the board is given the power to remove "officers" or "from office", I think it's pretty safe to assume that it means removal of persons from the particular offices, not all board members from the board.

Answer:

And the women and children have been known to cause their fair amount of trouble, too.

Not incorrect terminology, just incorrect procedure.

The last option should not be an option. A top result on Google is https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org . You might want to check it out ASAP.

Please don't post questions related to your particular situation in someone else's topic. Thanks.

Division of the question is a single motion, so I don't know what you mean by "the body voted to move into a division of the question." The motion to divide should specify how the question is to be divided before the vote is taken on it. Then, after the motion for Division of a Question is adopted, the chair states the question on the first part, and the body considers and votes on it. Then the chair states the question on the second part, etc. I also don't understand this part: "A senator then proposed a way to divide the question (by splitting the Constitutional Amendment package into 7 parts) and after that the floor was made open to motions". If the motion to divide was adopted without specifying how, then the chair should have called for suggestions (without any debate) as to how the motion should be divided, although I suppose a motion to Lay on the Table would be in order.

You must be alluding to the text on pages 593-594. That doesn't say anything about motions being laid on the table, but you may be right.