Phil D

As a proponent of both the Oxford Comma and objectivity, I would be remiss not to point out that the Oxford Comma can be a cause for ambiguity where it may be mistaken for an appositive. To mutate Mr. Novosielski's example: "I love my mother, Lady Gaga, and Humpty Dumpty," leaves ambiguous whether I am giving you a list of three things or telling you that my mother is Lady Gaga and I also love Humpty Dumpty. All of which is to say that RONR is no help to you here, and you should take care to avoid comma-related ambiguities regardless of your feelings on the Oxford Comma--which, I like others, maintain is correct, right, and true.

I forget if this is in the foreword to Roberts or elsewhere, but I tend to concur with the general wisdom that in the absence of established rules of order, you find yourself with a choice of evils: (1) Simple majority rule where the majority simply crushes the interests of any minority, no matter how large the minority or important the interest; (2) Despotism of the chair; (3) Disintegration of the group; (4) Some combination of the above. If Roberts seems too complicated, I've personally always been partial to "Rusty's Rules of Order," which enjoy both simplicity and proletarian pragmatism, though they probably give way to a bit more to chair-despotism and simple-majoritarianism, since they are less concerned with two-thirds majorities and various nested hierarchies of motions.

I generally concur with Mr. Martin, though I suppose I think it less ambiguous and more... flexible. It would seem that the president has whatever appointment authority the Board cares to give him. So if they tell the president to "hire a janitor," it would seem the president gets to pick who that is and whether they are part time or full time. If they tell the president to "hire a part-time janitor, subject to board approval," then it would seem the president gets to recommend a candidate to the board for part-time janitorial service. Thus, the Board would be wise to word any motions or resolutions granting appointment authority to the president wisely, and not presume that the president is required to seek their post hoc approval.

Agree with Mr Martin that this seems to be a question of bylaws interpretation more than RONR. “Shall make a written determination” is mandatory language, so the compliance officer doesn’t have a choice as to whether to make such a report. Does a good cause finding result in anything else happening? Does the officer make recommendations for further action? RONR does contemplate “settlements” in thr sense that the accused can potentially resign or make other arrangements to avoid preferral of charges under RONR. See 63:6 or 63:12 for instance.

Unless your bylaws or special rules of order say otherwise, under RONR, the motion can be re-raised at a later "session." A session is one or more meetings devoted to a particular agenda or order of business. (RONR 8:1-2). For many societies with regular meetings, each regular meeting constitutes its own discrete session. One session cannot put a question beyond a later session, without adopting a bylaw or special rule of order to that effect. (RONR 8:12). So a motion that is defeated at one session may generally be renewed at a later session.

RONR generally traffics in “ayes” and “noes,” using ballots as a method to fill offices. If you like a motion’s intent but think wording should be amended, RONR would have you to move to amend or to commit.

Agree with Richard. I'll add that next time, you might raise a motion to Postpone To A Certain Time if you feel that the main motion should not be decided until the Request For Information has a satisfactory answer. You will need to define a specific future time by which point you expect to have an answer to your Request For Information. A Motion To Commit might also be appropriate depending on the circumstances.

I should have more accurately said to adopt certain committee recommendations (though generally where the recommendation is a straightforward matter of a procedure). the second is very much a motion—see 61:16

Ordinarily a Chair cannot bring a motion to the floor without first vacating the Chair. However, there are certain circumstances in which a motion may be "assumed"--accepting committee reports for instance, to determine the method of an election, or to excuse the a member during deliberations over a disciplinary penalty against that member.

Assuming that by HOA meeting you mean a meeting of the whole HOA and not a meeting of an HOA Board or an HOA Executive Committee or something, and that the HOA is governed by RONR, and that the bylaws of the HOA don't contradict the following--then any members of the HOA should be permitted to speak in debate and raise motions.

He meant 61:2 which includes the infamous line "It is also possible to adopt a motion of censure without formal disciplinary procedures."

I tend to agree with JJ. Formal disciplinary proceedings can recommend a range of punishments from expulsion to removal from office to apparently assessing fines. Censure is comparatively a slap on the wrist. Hence why I think the rules allow for censure to occur by motion as well.

RONR does not confer so much power to the person moving to accept the agenda. Generally an amendment to a proposed agenda requires only a majority vote (see 41:63) if it’s contested, and often enough will be handled by unanimous consent. Approval of the agenda itself as amended or otherwise is also a matter which requires only a majority vote (usually) and frequently dealt with by unanimous consent. Take a look at your organizations bylaws or special rules of order for more guidance. These will override RONR.

We really need more information, like what the rules are that prescribe the treasurer’s role and in particular her voice-but-no-vote status as well as what the consent agenda is, how it is created and amended etc. RONR does talk about the possibility of having officers who are not members, but not about anything called a “consent agenda.“

Nothing in RONR prohibits self-nomination that I am aware of. 46:1-46:29 of RONR 12th Edition cover various methods of nomination, including nomination by the chair, floor votes, and nomination by committee. Indeed 46:12, discussing the method of nomination by committee, expressly states that members of such a committee can nominate themselves. The other methods don’t prohibit self-nominations. Most likely your bylaws have some specific rules about the methods of nomination, so those should also be consulted, along with any other relevant legal authority that governs your organization.

9:15 “The only business that can be transacted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting. This rule, however, does not preclude the consideration of privileged motions, or of any subsidiary, incidental, or other motions that may arise in connection with the transaction of such business or the conduct of the meeting. If, at a special meeting, action is taken relating to business not mentioned in the call, that action, to become valid, must be ratified (see 10:54–57) by the organization at a regular meeting (or at another special meeting properly called for that purpose).“

It’s in order to fix time to adjourn, adjourn, recess, and take measures to obtain quorum. Also: “Subsidiary and incidental motions, questions of privilege, motions to Raise a Question of Privilege or Call for the Orders of the Day, and other motions may also be considered if they are related to these motions or to the conduct of the meeting while it remains without a quorum.” A bit hard to conceive of where you get with postponing or laying some of these on the table, but perhaps in assemblies with larger quorum thresholds those discussions become complex.

That would not change the general issue that the motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted requires something to have been adopted in the first place. Of course we could speculate that the Bylaws authorize negative votes to be rescinded...

I defer to Richard and his citations

I think the Bylaws would need to be more specific to deprive the Assembly of the power to reject a presiding officer for one meeting at least by way of a motion to suspend the rules. I am less confident in asserting that this board-appointed chair is a chair pro tem as opposed to a bylaws-empowered chair. So a motion to vacate the chair may actually have been out of order, and disputes regarding the chair’s status ought to be resolved by way of the appeals process.

We are going to need a lot more detail. Richard is going to ask you to quote any relevant sections of the bylaws or other governing rules verbatim. It would be helpful to know for instance what kinds of meetings are held, or whether context suggests that the president presides at certain kinds of meetings only, or that the board’s chair-appointing authority applies to certain kinds of meetings only. Perhaps start with the full sections defining the role of the president and wherever you extracted that clause regarding the Board of Governors?

In addition to Dr. Kapur's comment, note 35:2, (2)'s description of the characteristics of a motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted: it may only be applied (as its title implies) to a motion which was adopted. Compare with the description of a motion to reconsider, which allows for reconsideration of both affirmative and negative votes (depending on other circumstances).

Unless your bylaws or parliamentary authority say otherwise, abstentions do not count at all. RONR generally calculates the result of a majority or 2/3 vote from members present and voting. Under those rules, whether there were 3 abstentions or 300, a vote of 2 ayes, 1 no is a 2/3 vote to adopt.

See 62:10 et sequitur of RONR. In broad strokes, the exact procedure depends on the nature of the Chair's position. If the Chair is an elected or appointed Chair Pro Tem, then a motion to declare the Chair vacant and proceed to elect a new Chair, if made and seconded, can be adopted by a majority vote. Such a motion is not in order if the Chair is not an elected or appointed Chair Pro Tem (i.e. the Chair is the organization's President or is otherwise Chair by virtue of that person's office). In that case, a motion to declare the Chair vacant could properly be ruled out of order by the Chair without a vote. To temporarily remove someone who is Chair by virtue of office, the Assembly can do so for the duration of the meeting or session by way of a motion to suspend the rules, requiring a 2/3 vote for adoption. 62:12 specifically states that either the Chair should turn the duty of presiding over to someone else during the determination of this motion, or the maker may put the motion to an immediate vote of the assembly directly. The procedure to remove an officer on a permanent basis depends on the specifics of your bylaws. If the Bylaws state that officers serve through the duration of their terms "or until their successors are elected," then removal merely by a motion to remove them. Such a motion, like a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted, requires either a 2/3 majority, majority with notice, or majority of entire membership to be adopted. If the Bylaws state that officers serve through the duration of their terms or through the duration of a fixed term "and until their successors are elected," then permanent removal can only occur for cause and requires a trial.

I think we will need the actual text of the bylaws to give you the best answer. If the bylaws really just say that motions require a 2/3 majority to pass, then typically it’s 2/3 of those present and voting. So if 2 people vote aye, 1 no, and 2 do not vote, you have a 2/3 majority. If you have 5 members voting, note that 3 ayes are not a 2/3 majority against 2 noes.