Marsha Thole

I just learned that the questions submitted in the Q&A portion of the annual meeting will only be answered and sent to the person asking the question, as that is what the members who remained wanted. In the past, questions and answers were published in the HOA newsletter for the benefit of those unable to attend. The comment from the vice president (presider at that meeting) was: If you weren't there, too bad, and you won't get that information. He told me the Q&A session was part of the meeting. I couldn't believe the attitude. This is horrible leadership and lack of dissemination of information to all members. Is there anything that I, as a member, can cite for restricting info at a meeting that needs to go to all members?

I am on a "working group" to revise the HOA's bylaws. I am outnumbered by the others who want to remove the article on Parliamentary Authority. After explaining there would be chaos, I ended by saying that if that is what they plan to do, I am off the group and out of the HOA (it is not mandatory anyway). Two men said they never heard of Robert's Rules (they are in their 70s). I gave some examples of the chaos, asking them how would they handle voting disputes if there were no rules? Anyone have some info I could use to convince these people that they would be making a big mistake to remove that article. Our state statutes are silent on requiring any authority.

'The cases in which a quorum is the persons attending is as follows: If the organization's bylaws specifically provide that as the quorum. In a mass meeting. If the organization has no required or effective annual dues and no reliable list of the society's members, and the organization's bylaws do not prescribe a quorum. (Examples of organizations where this provision is frequently applicable include churches and alumni associations.)" Josh, now I am confused. The bylaws have no quorum specified. The definition of a quorum in RONR requires too many people for our non-profit. BUT, the state statutes have a provision that would accommodate our small attendance. I have read RONR 3:4. Our association has specific annual dues. In our case, despite the lack of a specified quorum, the state tells you what to you. So, since there is a way to determine the quorum, via the state law, how do you arrive at the definition of a quorum being those are are attending? (It is late for me, so maybe I am missing something in the reading here.)

Thanks again, all. I am leaving that organization. Today they held an election at this annual meeting (the only business requiring a vote), and there wasn't even a quorum. The president declared they had a quorum, saying that "anyone attending counted as the quorum." No, that is only true at a convention. She cut me off when I started to explain that the state statutes would apply and allow those there to be a quorum. But...So, I can't convince them that a civil organization follows the law. So, because I have values, I will just not renew this upcoming year.

I don't mean to confuse anyone. Yes, thanks to my intervention, those who will be participating on Zoom will be able to vote. Sadly, the president will not be sending out an email correction to that effect, as her excuse is that the only 2 people who can do that are on vacation at the moment. No backup??? Sorry excuse. I sure hope she makes an announcement at the meeting, but common sense is nowhere to be found in this outfit. You can't help members who won't help themselves by questioning violations that are rampant.

I asked to see the agenda for the annual meeting of a non-profit association, as none had been sent, even with the notice. This is the response I got from the president: An agenda for this meeting has not been sent and will not be sent. This is not typically done for this meeting, as it mostly relates to donation giving, recognition, and elections. She only joined the association a year ago, and volunteered to be president for a year (no one knew her, and she is trying to make a name for herself in the community, and not doing that well). I have been with the association for 20+ years, served on the board, and was the one who did the agenda annually. So her statement is false when she says an "agenda is not typically done for this meeting." Unbelievable. Based on her comment, it would appear she should just call it a chapter appreciation lunch, but she added elections (the first under her, as she failed to follow the bylaws to get the other officers elected, and just appointed them with the reason, "we don't have time for an election" (we had 3 months!). Her comment on the required reports was: We really don't need them. Under her and a previous temporary vice president for 2 years, members were never allowed to vote for the officers, despite what the bylaws say. Violating our bylaws is the order of the day with all members of the board. She claims to know Robert's. Right. The bylaws are silent on many items, including how far in advance an agenda (for board meetings) is to be published. Questions: Is an annual meeting agenda required? I couldn't find that answer. If so, what is an acceptable time to send it out before an annual meeting?

Update to my post: I emailed the president who claimed no knowledge of the statement in the notice that Zoom participants at the annual meeting could not vote or speak, and said they can. I don't believe for one minutes that she didn't know what was in the notice she sent out. The fact that no one else brought that to her attention tells you the lack of commitment among the members and the lackadaisical attitude of not caring whether they vote. Thanks everyone for your input.

I am in the same situation. A group I belong has its annual meeting this weekend, it will be hybrid. BUT, the president has declared that anyone attending via ZOOM will not be allowed to vote, comment, or otherwise participate in the meeting, making them totally disenfranchised. Nothing in the bylaws about electronic meetings or even emails, which has been pointed out to the board many times over many years. It doesn't care. No special rules even. The president has made it clear that her actions are approved because need to have the meeting. (I was removed from the board's bylaws committee because I wanted them to follow RONR, which is their parliamentary authority. They were open about not following the bylaws, RONR, or state statutes, and didn't care. My only recourse is to not attend, and just report them to the Attorney General. I have to leave other members in such a mess, but they are clueless on our bylaws, too. Other than resigning (and I am thinking about it), what can I do to protect the integrity of the law here?

Weldon, I guess it wasn't clear enough. I didn't say the person posting the question could amend the minutes unilaterally, I said they would need a motion.

Yes, you can amend minutes previously approved. The motion is called: Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. See RONR 6:26-27, 35:1.

As I suspected, my point was ignored, and the president proceeded to repeat that there would be no discussion. So it was a yes or no vote. You can't fix stupid, as Judge Judy always says. (Yes, I know what Ch XX in RONR says. But as in most HOAs, the apathy is thicker than quick sand.)

Thank you. That is what I plan to do--raise a point of order. I don't expect to get far with that, though. These are people who are clueless on Robert's Rules, and the assembly would not (just as in the past) understand anything I would say, anyway. (Not the first president to ignore a point of order.)

To quote the bylaw on amending bylaws: The Board may amend these bylaws or any portion therefore. Changes shall take effect upon ratification by a majority vote..." Yes, the board is violating the usual 2/3 needed to approve bylaw amendments/revision by only using a majority vote. The board had no one on the bylaws committee except for board members--no one from the general membership.

The vote to ratify proposed bylaw amendments (made by the board) is to be done all at once with NO discussion, not on individual amendments. The reason proffered was that people had a chance to send in their comments prior, so there will be no discussion at the meeting, just an up or down vote--yes or no. Is that allowed, to not hold a discussion? RONR 10:57 says "the motion to ratify is a main motion, it is debatable and opens the entire question to debate." So can the president declare there will be no debate? (Nothing in the our bylaws covers that.)

J.J. This association does not take nominations from the floor, as the bylaws have a requirement to post the the list of candidates with their bios.