Search the Community

Our HOA board has an bylaw amendment written by our attorney to tighten up some things. We may have some resistance. Once I make the motion to approve the amendment, and we're in the debate and Q & A session....do I have to recognize another motion made by a resident if he wants to change anything about the wording? I want to get to a vote on the amendment as written and avoid trying to amend in the annual meeting.

For consistency and explanatory purposes, it seems like at it would be better for the motions to ratify or censure to be explained under the chapter on incendental motions rather than so cursorily at the end of the chapter on the main motion. In the very least, it seems as though the motions to ratify or censure are different enough from the motion to adopt (e.g., recommendations about action to be taken v. not-yet-validated actions perhaps already taken) that the motions should fall under separate subheadings. I raised more specific questions about the motion to ratify in an earlier post. But it also seems like the motions to ratify or censure deserve a more thorough treatment, if not with form and examples then at least with standard descritpive characteristics. I believe the motion to ratify (as opposed to the motion to censure) should not be allowed to be laid on the table such that it could ever fall to the ground. Actions requiring ratification should not go unratified. They should either be ratified or censured. I also believe the synonym to "approve" for the motion to ratify should be omitted. Otherwise the motion to "approve" (i.e., ratify) could become a conflicting term with the practice of approving minutes, which is not done by a motion. Worse, an organization could become mistaken that approving minutes which might include action in need of ratification, say from a previously held special meeting since the last regular meeting, is somehow tantamount to ratifying such actions. Which is bad.

On page 144 of RONR 11ed. an example of the chair stating the question on a pending amendment is giving as "if the word is inserted, the primary amendment will be, "to add the resolution for the purchase of the property..."". It refers to the main motion as a resolution "for the purchase of the property" without stating the main motion in its exact words. Therefore, is it OK to do so when stating the question on a secondary amendment or a primary amendment for that matter. Also, is it necessary to use the words on page 155 beginning with "it should be noted..." or can the motion be put without that added note on the motion?

If the assembly wanted to make a motion requiring all chapter delegates to pass a test in parliamentary procedure, would the better wording be "I move to require all chapter delegates to pass a test in parliamentary procedure" or "I move that we require all chapter delegates to pass a test in parliamentary procedure" or some other variation?

If a main motion and a subsidiary motion that was reconsiderable failed, does adopting motion to reconsider subsidiary motion after the main motion failed bring back main motion for consideration as well?

I was told the story of a member of an HOA who was trying to squash a motion made by another member. He interjected his own motion to adjourn right after the original main motion was presented without receiving the floor. The story continues that the chair then asked for and received a second and called for a vote. The yeas won and the meeting was adjourned. The member making the motions was “an object attached to another object by an inclined plane wrapped around an axis.” He didn’t understand his rights in the meeting. The motion was never mentioned in the minutes. My question: Between the time a member is recognized and presents a main motion and the end of the presenter’s argument yielding the floor in the debate, can another member gain the floor to move for an adjournment, recess, lay on the table or postpone indefinitely? My opinion is no. 1) The motioner holds the floor during his/her motion. 2) He yields to the chair after the motion was presented. 3) The chair has the floor and must request a second, state the question and then offer the motioner the floor for his argument. 5) The motioner holds the floor for his period of time or until he yields after his argument in debate. A member now may gain the floor and may make a privileged motions as I listed. The motion to adjourn was A) Out of order because the interrupting member never received the floor. B) The member who interrupted the original motion may not do so during a main motion with another privileged motion except for a Question of Privilege. C) The chair prevented the making of a legitimate motions or deprived a member the right to introduce new business. RONR p.360 ll.20-24 During this period in this exercise, the chair may only hear and act upon a motion "objecting to the consideration of the motion” (or any other an incidental motion that can interrupt). That incidental motion would have prevented the presentation or the continuation of the motion if the objection was won by a majority of nay votes. This may have received the same affect as the non- parliamentary interruption.. Am I correct in writing that a 2/3rds of the votes in the Nay would stop the motion? Or are my negatives mixed up?

When the original amendment made to modify the main motion; then second amendment (eligibility) was made to original amendment. What is the correct procedure?

We are in the process of revising our Bylaws by committee. When voting time comes, I was told "because our general membership already made a motion to review and revise our Bylaws by committee, we don't need to get a motion from the floor to accept each section containing a revision". Everything I have read and researched in RONR, RONR In Brief and even for Roberts Rules Dummies, I have found nothing to validate the statement. She says she got this info from her post in the RONR forum in 2006 but doesn't have a copy of it. How do we know there is an ineterest in going into discussion on it without a motion and a second? Am I on the right track here?

I was looking at the collection of scrips for handling different motions at http://nancysylvester.com/docs/Resources/parliamentary_procedure_scripts.html. In order to follow strict RONR, do motions have to be said exactly as the script outlines or is there gray area? For example, after a member has seconded a motion, is it OK to say "It has been moved and seconded" vs "It is moved and Seconded". The script also uses the term "discussion" whereas other scripts use the term "debate". Is either correct? Is it acceptable to say "Those opposed say Nay" vs "Those opposed say no"?

I recently came across this question in a parliamentary procedure test. After a motion has been withdrawn, the same motion: A. Can be made the immediate pending question again by the member who originally proposed the motion B. Can be made again at the same meeting if the original maker approves by seconding it. C. Cannot be made again at the same meeting. D. Can be made again at the same meeting. The correct answer was marked D. Can anyone verify this or explain why? I had thought that once a motion was made in a particular meeting, it could not be made in that same meeting unless the issue had somehow changed or new information had come about, which was not specified in the question or the answer. Thanks and I'm glad a found a forum like this. - Etan

1) A motion was made and seconded 2) An Objection to Consideration of the Question was made 3) A vote was made (the Objection to Consideration lost) 4) A quorum was lost during the tallying of the votes 5) The loss of quorum was noted and the meeting was adjourned Is the original motion (that survived the Objection to Consideration) now placed in Old Business at the next meeting?

When does a duly adopted main motion go into effect? Does it (a) go into effect as soon as the motion is adopted, or does it ( go into effect after the minutes of the meeting at which the motion was adopted are formally approved by the body at the subsequent meeting?

A motion is properly made and seconded and being discussed. A member mover to place the motion on the Table. This motion is seconded, voted upon and passed by a majority vote. The meeting is subsequently adjourned. At a later meeting, without taking the tabled motion off the table, may a member introduce a motion which is in direct opposition to the tabled motion?

Suppose a committee is operating under rules that say it must choose to dispose an items in front of it by a) sending it to the main body with a recommendation to pass, sending to the main body with recommendation to reject, or c) sending to the main body with no recommendation. During a committee meeting, a member makes a main motion to return a referred item to the main body with no recommendation. If a majority of committee members would prefer another option, according to the best practices of parliamentary law, what is the proper way to proceed: A. Object immediately to the "no recommendation" main motion being taken up, and initiate another motion. B. Go through the full debate; vote down "no recommendation"; then immediately consider one of the other options. Option B seems to make more sense to be -- get to the substance of the debate right away and then vote which way to go at the end, but there may be some surly folks on the committee who will try to say "We've already considered that item today. Can't consider it again" after a "no recommendation" vote. In fact, that may be the reason they will try to initiate to "no recommendation" in the first place.