Guest KI Posted April 28, 2011 at 04:21 AM Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 at 04:21 AM Our HOA has been trying to amend our bylaws for years. At our annual meeting last year, the proposed bylaws amendment fell one vote short of the 2/3 requirement to adopt. Since that meeting the president went to a couple of members that voted against the bylaws to see what their concerns were. The two members wanted to increase the controls on the authority of the board which the president agreed to include along with the changes that failed in the last meeting. The president asked the other members of the board to review the proposed changes at their most recent board meeting. The board agreed with the changes and the new draft bylaws were sent out to the membership for them to review for the upcoming meeting. We have a group of members who are questioning whether the president can make the changes and submit them to the membership for vote. The bylaws state "Proposed changes to these bylaws shall be reviewed by an ad hoc committee appointed by the president, prior to submittal to the membership. Upon receipt of the recommended changes, the secretary will give 30 days notice prior to the vote to amend these bylaws." The president's position is there are no requirements to who has to be on the "ad hoc" committee and therefore he appointed the board to review the changes. The secretary sent out the changes to the membership with the required 30 days notice. Is this legitimate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted April 28, 2011 at 06:21 AM Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 at 06:21 AM Looks proper to me. Seems that the president appointed the members of the board to be the "ad hoc" -- AKA "Special" -- bylaws review committee. It did its job and you are on your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted April 28, 2011 at 07:16 AM Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 at 07:16 AM At our annual meeting last year, the proposed bylaws amendment fell one vote short of the 2/3 requirement to adopt.Since that meeting the president went to a couple of members that voted against the bylaws to see what their concerns were. The two members wanted to increase the controls on the authority of the board which the president agreed to include along with the changes that failed in the last meeting. The president asked the other members of the board to review the proposed changes at their most recent board meeting. The board agreed with the changes and the new draft bylaws were sent out to the membership for them to review for the upcoming meeting. We have a group of members who are questioning whether the president can make the changes and submit them to the membership for vote. The bylaws state "Proposed changes to these bylaws shall be reviewed by an ad hoc committee appointed by the president, prior to submittal to the membership.Upon receipt of the recommended changes, the secretary will give 30 days notice prior to the vote to amend these bylaws." The president's position is, there are no requirements to who has to be on the "ad hoc" committee, and therefore he appointed the board to review the changes.The secretary sent out the changes to the membership with the required 30 days notice. Is this legitimate?So far, from your description, assuming your cited your rules accurately, I don't see any problem.An ad hoc committee indeed can be as few as "a committee of one."An ad hoc committee indeed can be comprised of 100% board members.That is, no rule in Robert's Rules forbids such a composition of a committee.I'd like to hear your colleagues' argument against, since, committee-wise, all is well.***Gee, if your rule was taken to the extreme, as a parliamentary exercise, the president COULD APPOINT HIMSELF AS A COMMITTEE OF ONE, and thus satisfy your rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted April 28, 2011 at 12:07 PM Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 at 12:07 PM Seems the prez could appoint himself as the ad-hoc committee, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted April 28, 2011 at 12:31 PM Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 at 12:31 PM Page 478 (d) makes me wonder if the assumed appointment of the Board to the review committee was properly handled. In particular are lines 28-31 on page 478, and 3-7 on page 479, as well as lines 26-29 on page 167. Might be a slippery straw I'm grasping at, but curiosity overwhelms me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted April 28, 2011 at 01:01 PM Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 at 01:01 PM Seems to me that your citations relate to appointing non-members (of the association) to committees. Although it is possible, I suspect strongly that all of KI's Board members are also members of the association, so that the additional notification requirements don't come into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted April 28, 2011 at 01:12 PM Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 at 01:12 PM Well, while references to non-members being appointed to committees are mixed in with the general text, I don't see it that those citations apply only to appointment of such non-members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.