Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

ACC Controversy


Guest Kelly

Recommended Posts

Our ACC had 3 members until one resigned recently. Our bylaws state, "The ACC shall consist of three (3) members... Any two (2) of three (3) members may act for the Committee... the Association shall have the power to change the membership of the committee and remove or appoint its members..."

Since two members remain, the committee still meets quorum if both show up -- right?

Sometimes committees go through periods where they have an even number of members and in this case, I believe Robert's Rules of Order addresses the issue of a 1-1 vote because it ends up as a no vote. (If a homeowner does not agree with a no vote from the ACC, they have the right to ask for reconsideration and ultimately appeal to the Board of Directors.

Finally, the BOD has been actively seeking volunteer(s) to fill the outstanding vacancy, but the committee remains active with only two members at this time.

However, there is contention within the community that the committee is not allowed to act.

Do I understand these provisions correctly, or am I missing something? Robert's Rules of Order say that a quorum of members may function given the absence of other committee members. Are temporary committee vacancies to be treated or considered differently than absences? Is there any other information relevant to this particular situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see both sides of the argument. You have 2, and 2 can act for the committee, so you're good to go. I see your point.

But I can see where one would say the bylaws state any 2 OF THE THREE may act..., so you need three. SHALL consist of three, yadda yadda. I see their point.

Which is why......

everyone together....

this forum cannot interpret your bylaws; that's up to the members of the group to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see both sides of the argument. You have 2, and 2 can act for the committee, so you're good to go. I see your point.

But I can see where one would say the bylaws state any 2 OF THE THREE may act..., so you need three. SHALL consist of three, yadda yadda. I see their point.

Which is why......

everyone together....

this forum cannot interpret your bylaws; that's up to the members of the group to do.

...And see RONR pp. 570-573 for some principles to help you all with that interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this question in an earnest attempt to gain a better understanding of what, for me, is a thorny issue because I lack relevant experience with Robert's Rules. I think it is disheartening to see that a novice like me is being treated in such an off hand manner with a dismissive reply like "...yadda yadda... everyone together -- this forum cannot interpret your bylaws." This is only my second post. Clearly I am a novice on Robert's Rules and looking to others with more experience to provide meaningful help and guidance. I thought this was a forum I could turn to for legitimate advice. My mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this question in an earnest attempt to gain a better understanding of what, for me, is a thorny issue because I lack relevant experience with Robert's Rules. I think it is disheartening to see that a novice like me is being treated in such an off hand manner with a dismissive reply like "...yadda yadda... everyone together -- this forum cannot interpret your bylaws." This is only my second post. Clearly I am a novice on Robert's Rules and looking to others with more experience to provide meaningful help and guidance. I thought this was a forum I could turn to for legitimate advice. My mistake.

I am sorry that you felt that you got a dismissive response. Unfortunately RONR will not provide an answer to your question and as tctheatc pointed out both interpretations are reasonable. It is going to be up to you all to interpret those bylaws and decide whether the committee can validly conduct business with only two members and on pages 570-573 you will find some principles to help you all interpret those bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this question in an earnest attempt to gain a better understanding of what, for me, is a thorny issue because I lack relevant experience with Robert's Rules. I think it is disheartening to see that a novice like me is being treated in such an off hand manner with a dismissive reply like "...yadda yadda... everyone together -- this forum cannot interpret your bylaws." This is only my second post. Clearly I am a novice on Robert's Rules and looking to others with more experience to provide meaningful help and guidance. I thought this was a forum I could turn to for legitimate advice. My mistake.

You might find the CAUTION at the beginning of the Frequently Asked Questions webpage helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, Guest Kelly, the atc was not mocking or being dismissive of you. His saying "yadda yadda" and "all together now" was simply a reference, directed to regular readers and writers on this forum, to a perennial issue that we often deal with:

1) Clearly, questions concerning the way business is to be conducted in a meeting are questions about parliamentary procedure (that's pretty much a definition), and such procedures are often found in an organization's bylaws;

2) Robert's Rules is the basic book about parliamentary procedure;

3) A website about RONR will be focussed on parliamentary procedure (notwithstanding digressions about all sorts of things, like my obsessions with crocodile horticulture and fine points of genteel bank robbing);

4) So it seems natural for a newcomer like Kelly to expect his concerns to be looked at seriously, and to be treated with respect.

5) And thus the counterintuitive nature of this website is that it must rigorously stay away from discussing the specific provisions of individual organizations' bylaws.

Yet, perversely then, to a grizzled, wizened, seasoned ex-vet neophyte parliamentarian like the atc (or an aspiring wizened parliamentarian like me), it's repetitive to tell well-intentioned and polite inquirers like Kelly that we can't help him.

That's why, although the substance of the atc's reply was on point and comprehensive, its brevity might have made it seem, to relative novice Kelly, to be careless. And the atc's convivial bantering sometimes won't seem convivial or friendly to a newcomer like Kelly.

However. "Assume Good Faith" has not been used up here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kelly, you ought take no offense from my reply. Matter of fact, I read your snippet of the bylaws several times in order to give a reply i thought it to be rather thoughtful. Both sides do seem reasonable, though admittedly at first glance I tended toward your side. But I gave it more thought. There was nothing dismissive whatsoever in my reading or reply. As for yadda's, maybe some viewing of Seinfeld reruns will make you less intolerant of that phrase. You asked for insight on this issue, and I suggested both sides were reasonable interpretations and it must be settled by your group interpreting its bylaws. That in itself is RONR based.

Please take no offense. I'm far too inexperienced myself to give any! My reply was meant to be helpful, on-point, and correct. I'm a perfectly nice and charming guy. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...