Shmuel Gerber

The thing to apologize for, and which Kim K did apologize for, is posting a new question into an old topic. The forum instructions clearly say not to do that. Next time how about graciously accepting apologies instead of making people feel bad for apologizing.:-)

Not for nothing, this topic is now closed.

Why all this interruption? :-)

No, you don't gotta ask that, and fixter don't gotta answer.

Well, it would be truly awful if the ballot had no names listed on it AND there wasn't any room for write-ins. :-)

And then they should both be given the heave-ho. They're terribly worded.

Normally, a motion will be carried out by one or more of the executive officers, the executive board, or a standing or special committee, depending on who has the power to act on matters relating to the motion or on behalf of the society in general. That is why the executive board is called the executive board -- it executes actions on behalf of the society. "Except in the simplest and smallest local societies, or those holding very frequent regular meetings, it is generally found advisable to provide in the bylaws for a board to be empowered to act for the society when necessary between its regular meetings, and in some cases to have complete control over certain phases of the society's business." (RONR, p. 481.) If there is an executive board, and if the motion does not full under the purview of any particular officer or committee, then that is the executive board's responsibility. If there is no executive board, then I agree the bylaws should provide that the president (or someone else, such as the executive secretary) shall be the chief executive officer of the society. Otherwise, the president will not have any such authority: "In many organized societies, the president has duties as an administrative or executive officer; but these are outside the scope of parliamentary law, and the president has such authority only insofar as the bylaws provide it." (p. 456)

Agreed. Now what does rule 2 refer to? Rule 2 also refers to debate in the assembly. What's your point? I honestly have no idea what you're getting at. What violation of the rule was there on the part of the member making the point of order? And when you say "the very rule about which one is complaining," I assume you mean the complaint pertaining to a violation of the rule, not a complaint about the rule itself. But actually you're not being very clear.

If a member wants to make a motion, then it's the chair's duty to either allow the member to do so or to say why the motion is not in order. It is not the chair's job to counter with reasons against the motion. And there is no such thing as "tabl[ing] it until I could research."

When an assembly takes a recess, it's usually for a specific amount of time or until called back in to session by the chair. We don't know what rule this organization has on the subject and what was declared at the time the meeting "paused." I don't think the issue is whether everyone returned or whether a quorum was present. The issue is how and when the meeting was scheduled to reconvene. Also, this break seems more in the nature of an adjournment than a recess.

Rule 1(a) is obviously talking about when a senator desires to speak *in debate during a session of the assembly*, not at his kitchen table to his children (or while answering the questions of children at a committee hearing).

Of course the HOA election rules, if properly adopted, would take precedence over RONR. However, you haven't quoted any rules that lead me to believe -- or at least nothing that definitely says -- that board members may be elected by less than a majority vote. And I would hardly call it a "failure" of the members to elect the full number of authorized directors if you don't hand them ballots at the meeting when RONR says you're supposed to, such as when repeated balloting at the meeting is necessary in order to determine the majority. But that passage, which I suspect RobertJ has not yet read for himself, says nothing about how to determine the winners in an election to a board with multiple identical seats. There is no exception in RONR for the situation where the number of candidates on the ballot (or the number of candidates for whom votes have been cast) is not more than the number of positions to be filled, but jstackpo and Richard Brown and RobertJ seem to be treating the case as though there is such an exception.

A rule stating that a nominee must receive at least one vote to be elected obviously does not mean that every candidate with at least one vote is automatically elected. The standard for election in Robert's Rules is a majority vote -- more specifically: "In an election of members of a board or committee in which votes are cast in one section of the ballot for multiple positions on the board or committee, every ballot with a vote for one or more candidates is counted as one vote cast, and a candidate must receive a majority of the total of such votes to be elected. In such a case, if more than the prescribed number receive a majority vote, the places are filled by the proper number receiving the largest number of votes. If less than the proper number receive a majority vote, those who do have a majority are elected, and all others remain as candidates for the necessary repeated balloting." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 441).

Actually, there would be seven board-member positions that could be filled by persons nominated at the annual meeting, but at least two of them *must* be filled by such persons (if they are to be filled at the meeting at all). According to RONR, a majority vote is required to elect. So the answer will depend on whether the seven positions on the board are differentiated in some way, with voters choosing a name for each specific position, or they are considered identical positions, with voters merely listing or choosing up to seven names for the board. If the latter, then since it is obvious that at least 30 ballots have been cast, Homeowner A did not receive the required majority. What should happen then is that all candidates who did receive a majority should be declared elected, and another round of balloting should take place to complete the election.

I think we all know what the gerbil ball committee's duties are, but it may take some time to figure out the rest.

What? Gary is leaving Brooklyn and he hasn't even said goodbye?

You can delete the record of the conversation from your inbox, but that won't delete it from the other person(s)'s side. Is that really so complicated (other than all those parentheses and s's)?

Does it always take nine months to get answers around here?

The mod can't actually mod the interface, although maybe he could pester the people who could pester the people who could pester the people who could modify the interface.

Well, a motion to Postpone Indefinitely is debatable. A motion to Postpone is debatable only as it relates to the merits (and details) of postponement, and only until the limits of debate have been exhausted.

But that doesn't mean they won't be deleted.

9 is a majority of 16, since it is more than 8. See FAQ 4.

The answer depends on whether the secretary reads from the notes when reading the minutes, or from a draft of the actual minutes book. The current edition doesn't elaborate on this topic, but you might want to read the second paragraph of this section from the 1915 edition, along with the footnote to that paragraph: http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-10.htm#60

If that's the case, then I guess the answers don't matter -- as long as Alex can read his own question. (Note: I am NOT suggesting that we reply to an all-caps question with all-caps answers.)

I'll second that. Here's to the next decade and a half, at least.