Alfred

I 100% understand the process, thank you. The item should have never been placed in the Calendar is my point. 

The Board I am now a part of is a bit Dysfunctional when it comes to knowing and following proper proceedure. This is the reasoning as to my questioning of how they tend to business.

Sincerely, Alfred

Thank you, my previous years of experience everyone knew what they were doing we worked in unison and specialized in different areas. A great team. We always had an International Representative and Parliamentarian we could turn to if needed. This new experience is a bit dysfunctional and I am trying to bring order but not be disruptive to the process of business. Volunteers don't want to be too involved it would seem but I take my commitment to heart.

Thank you very much.

Alfred

Thank you. I have used Robert's Rules of Order for quite a few years and I even keep current Robert's for Dummies. I queried this Parliamentary page because of the greater knowledge than I have. I am new to an AOAO Board and the differences from my experience are puzzling. Robert's interpretation I read was Consent Calendars are generally not used by HOA'S or AOAO'S. And if they were used the content was items that needed no discussion or amendment. If they needed to be addressed then any member would request the particular item to be separated from the Consent Calendar.

So my round about question was why would we add an item that required singilar attention too defeating the purpose of a Consent Calendar?

Sorry...

I am recently new to this Board and we have a new Managing Executive. (ME)

Our Organization is Kona Mansions V Association of Apartment Owners. (KMV AOAO)

1. A special rule to have a Consent Calendar is required? 

2. If an item needs discussion or amending why add it ? Is it not removed if individual action is required?  Making a motion to amend within is defeating the purpose of a Consent Calendar?

3. Annual Meeting Minutes (always held in March) are adopted at the next meeting and then again at the following Annual Meeting? Is this proper proceedure?

4. Treasurers Report needs a Motion to adopt?

Thank you for any information and enlightenment.

Alfred

     I think there are at least 2 problems with this statement from our ME about the Consent Calendar she put on our meeting agenda. We have not edited the Annual Minutes yet. Thoughts?

   "You will note in the consent calendar the minutes and financials that were already reviewed via email, the personnel changes, approved reimbursement, and 2 motions completed over email between meetings.  Only one motion is needed to approve all of those items and it can be a motion with edits to the minutes within the motion if need be and that singular motion can be amended as needed, but only one motion is needed.

·         These items are still listed in the agenda for clear designation in the proper place in the agenda and minutes as appropriate but noted as being a part of the consent calendar so that we may skip over them during the meeting as we come to them without confusion, no further motion needed."

Thanks, I'm the new guy with past experience challenging how business has been being conducted. Welcomed by most and a trouble maker now to the old regime.

I could start a new topic on how they are handling committees. I had to point out that our By-Laws specifically state to follow ROBERTS RULES. Fun times. But I am actually enjoying the challenge to help bring the Association in to compliance.

Thank you and everyone for input it is greatly appreciated.

It would be more advantageous to clean the By-Laws to clear any discrepancies but our Treasurer just site that it will cost to much money. They also interpret it differently and have applied it Annually for re-electing the replaced Directors and chaged the Staggering of election terms that was originally outlined in our By-Laws.

The Document in whole helps to clear up the double talk of that Sections intent.

At least for the majority of the Board and we have challenged this last year and it fell through the cracks and it happened again this year but we are trying to resolve the issue.

My interpretation is in the use of Successor which is at the end of the replaced Director's term to keep the integrity of the initial Staggering that was placed into effect at inception in an earlier Section of the By-Laws.

Thank you both for supporting my sanity..

We are in email debate and now the old president just sent an email and declares we have been making the new Directors run for election at the next Annual Meeting for 16 years. I feel that does not make it right or set a precedence and should be corrected not continued.

Hello,

Our Board is in debate of our By-Laws, when a Director is voted in to replace a Director's position that is leaving the Board whether or not they finish the term of said Director. There is earlier language that institutes Staggering terms so not all Directors are up for election at the same time. I believe this language further  corroborates the Director serves the remainder of the term of the Director's position they are replacing.

Appreciate any input or questions.

Thank you

Alfred

ARTICLE II
Section 4. Vacancies
Vacancies in the Board of Directors caused by any reason other than removal of a director by the Association shall be filled by vote of a majority of the remaining directors, even though they may constitute less than a quorum, and each person so elected shall be a director until his successor is elected at the next annual meeting of the Association. Notwithstanding any provisions herein to the contrary, any director elected to fill any vacancy on the Board of Directors shall serve for the remainder of the term of the director whose vacancy he is elected to fill. Death, incapacity or resignation of any director, or his ceasing to be the sole owner or Co-owner of an apartment, shall caused his office to become vacant. Three unexcused absences from regular or special, properly noticed, Board meetings between annual meetings shall cause a director's office to become vacant if a majority of the remaining directors so vote.