par

On 2/6/2021 at 7:02 AM, Richard Brown said:

Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure is designed specifically for legislative bodies, which have needs significantly different from those of ordinary voluntary associations and non profit corporations.

Can we get tl;dr version here?

39 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Assuming you have a copy of the 12th edition of RONR, read 49:5-7 and 46:41.  If these rules do not apply, it is because the organization itself adopted rules to the contrary or applicable law provides otherwise.

 

Which completely absolves RONR from any responsibility for the end result

I love how RONR likes to pretend the rules apply to some imaginary and rational participants and not humans on planet Earth.

50 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

Presumably, the "rest" of the home owners' association elected the members of the executive board.

Most likely via cumulative voting of a few. 

https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/37484-hoa-hit-list/

Is posting links to  https://jurassicparliament.com/ verboten?

On 7/26/2021 at 5:12 AM, Josh Martin said:

So far as RONR is concerned, persons who are not members of the board have no rights to speak at the meeting at all. They may speak only to the extent the board allows them to do so. Since you say that the board has provided for a comment period and that, generally, only board members are permitted to speak after that, it would seem to me that permission of the board would be required for the guests to speak at other times.

Whether to recognize a nonmember is at the discretion of the board, not the chair. The chair lacks the authority, acting alone, to permit a nonmember to speak. Certainly, however, the chair might request unanimous consent to permit a person to speak.

Now think about the dynamics this arrangement creates. An HOA board can effectively ignore the voice of the members and pursue their own agenda without having to pay attention to what the rest of the HOA thinks.

RONR, a nice cover for despotism.

On 7/3/2021 at 7:25 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Is this actually an issue that is causing any problems?

Not really, it is just unnecessary.

1 minute ago, Josh Martin said:

Well, that's interesting, but I don't know what has to do with the price of oranges.

Your original statement was that it was a problem that RONR was not "authoritative" enough on certain matters, and I was addressing that concern.

I was just presenting an idea since you were asking for a solution in the post I replied to:

>  I don't know what more can be done in this regard.

Maybe you don't want to hear this kind of ideas and that's fine with me.

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Well, You are perfectly free to purchase and distribute for free all of the copies of RONR that you desire! I am sure the authors and the publisher would appreciate the extra sales. 😃

 

It's all about money, isn't it? 

24 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

As has been previously noted, there are a number of cases in which RONR explicitly says that certain rules (notwithstanding that the rules may ultimately be adopted in the bylaws) are extremely ill-advised. I don't know what more can be done in this regard.

Making RR available for free would probably go a long way towards this goal. Right now only enlightened few have access to the full text and know what's in it.

Unfortunately RR are often used to give legitimacy to stupidity via an appeal-to-authority.  Pretending it isn't the case is disingenuous.

Yeah, it works. The only issue at this point is unnecessary base64 encoding:

From: =?UTF-8?B?VGhlIE9mZmljaWFsIFJPTlIgUSAmIEEgRm9ydW1z?= <noreply@invisioncloudcommunity.com>
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?U2Vjb25kcy4=?=

1 hour ago, Atul Kapur said:

See 49:21 Procedure in Small Boards

 

Thanks! Clearly not everybody is aware of this. The results are often hilarious.

Roberts rules is a great set of rules for preventing lone dissenters from having their objections registered. A five person HOA board with a lone dissenter can effectively neutralize the impact the person can have on the proceedings. They can not even put a motion in place because ...... no seconds. Even worse when only the minimum quorum - 3 people - is present. Reminds me of two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Should the seconds rule be relaxed in such small environments? The insistence on following the seconds rule under these conditions seem very superficial.

You don't need seconds if your quorum is 5 or less would probably make sense.

@Shmuel Gerber

Haven't gotten anything. Please trigger something. I hope I am not shadow banned

On 5/25/2021 at 9:55 AM, RSW said:

Whether the things decided are stupid or not is immaterial.

Quote of the year. Wonder if this "flexibility" was intended from the get-go.

According to RR cumulative voting is bad. What is a better option for an HOA board of directors election?

On 5/23/2021 at 7:31 AM, Joshua Katz said:

If there are 10 members with equal voting share, and 5 send in letters saying they want something, then the 6th sends a letter 10 years later, I would think that's the written consent needed. Consider that RONR says, in effect, that those who choose to conduct business outside of a deliberative assembly are left to their own devices, and good luck to them, because of the oddities that arise.

I think this is one of the shortcomings of RR where it never tries to be authoritative. From your example: a 10year voting deadline? Sure, no problem. Not stupid at all. Just make sure the rule is included in by-laws.

1 hour ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Found a website especially for HOA s in California:  https://findhoalaw.com/about/

Maybe give them a ring or send them an email.(in you cannot find it on the website, and they are not linked to your election inspector)

Also maybe contact the Californian branch of :e natnational association of parliamentarians or the AIP

LOL:

Quote

FindHOALaw is powered by a law firm that has been providing expert legal counsel to California HOAs exclusively for over 25 years

My experience is getting a qualified lawyer to take a case against an HOA is difficult. It is just hard for an attorney to make a living this way. It is much easier to represent HOAs and their inflated budgets. My HOA puts 400k/year aside in cash reserves.

Thank you for verifying. I will keep an eye on my SPAM folder while this is being investigated.

1 hour ago, Guest Puzzling said:

And what rule gave the board the authority to adopt the quoted rule? 

(Under no rule stating this  only the members meeting  has a right to adopt rules)

Let me quote the November 2020 newsletter:
 

Quote

 

Election Rules

On October 12, 2019, Senate Bill 323 was signed into law. This significant piece of legislation, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, has mandated several changes to the way common interest developments conduct their elections. One of the most important – and time-sensitive – aspects of this law requires that boards adopt new Election Rules. These new Rules must integrate changes related to qualifications for voting and director candidacy, notice prior to ballot distribution and additional requirements for the Inspector of Elections, among other things. Enclosed you will find a proposed set of Election Rules intended to bring this association into compliance. 

Members are requested to review this document. Any comments regarding the same should be emailed to the Association’s community manager, XXX YYY. All comments should be submitted in advance of the above-mentioned meeting date. The Board will be considering adoption of the proposed Election Rules at the upcoming Board meeting in December. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. 

 

For the record the amendment in the original question is being pushed because of voluntary compliance with a new state law for the new constructions. It seems voluntary compliance with the state laws overrides member interests and any governing documents.

All email notification from this forum are missing the ending MIME marker which results in the message from Amavis in the title(and the SPAM folder in my case). Is this another thing broken by Amazon SES or something that can be fixed by a simple config change somewhere?

Edit: It seems Amazon SES is aware of the need to include the ending marker. From an example in their docs - https://docs.aws.amazon.com/ses/latest/dg/event-publishing-send-email.html

Quote

X-SES-MESSAGE-TAGS: tagName1=tagValue1, tagName2=tagValue2
X-SES-CONFIGURATION-SET: myConfigurationSet
From: sender@example.com
To: recipient@example.com
Subject: Subject
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
    boundary="----=_boundary"

------=_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

body
------=_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

body
------=_boundary--    

The last line is always missing ;(

37 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I believe this is the first I have ever heard of an organization authorizing some official (a non-member, at that, apparently) to determine when to close and re-open the polls. 

Seems to be a California thing:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=inspectors+of+election+hoa+service

@Richard Brown

From the duties of the inspector of elections(third party in this case):

EDIT: However in reality(from OP):

Quote

"The election inspector is providing updates about the number of votes received to the HOA board and the board votes on extending the deadline. "

There are some additional regulations. Apologies for not finding it sooner:

EDIT: Not sure however if these have been adopted as this is from less than 6 month old proposal and I do not see it in the current set of documents. Will know more tomorrow. 

Edit 2: These have been adopted by the board.