valid attendance record

[Guest Susan HROA]

Hello.

We use RONR to conduct our HOA meetings. This is prescribed per the laws of my state (NC) - see General Statute 47F-108-3©.

At a recent general membership meeting, I was recognized and requested that the list of eligible members be called -- for present and absent. In addition, many of our members live outside of the state -- and so they attend by proxy.

There are 56 total members that own 72 lots in the subdivision.

The reading of the eligible voters list to establish who is present or absent takes about 3 minutes.

In addition, when a member is "present by proxy" it makes it possible to confirm that the delegate cited is at the meeting.

There has been some controversy -- that the Board is manufacturing votes (inventing proxies) etc.

Anyhow - when I made my request the Board Secretary snarled at me that he was not required to read the eligible voters list to establish that there was a quorum or make an audible attendence record for those absent.

He further stated, that the President could be trusted -- and she was looking around the room and making notes on a sheet of those present at the meeting.

We did utilize a signature 'sign-in' sheet -- at least that way you knew with confidance -- who (in fact) was at the meeting.

MY QUESTION: How is a legitimate attendance record created?

I have the very latest copy of RONR -- so, if you just want to cite the section, etc.

Honestly, I have looked and looked. I find "quorum. But, this is a question about exactly "who" was at the meeting -- and then proving for posterity that YES they were -- in fact -- there -- or not.

Thanks. - Susan

[Gary Novosielski]

RONR has no attendance rules or requirements, beyond determining that a quorum is present, and except for noting the presiding and recording officers in the minutes, does not require recording "who" was at the meeting.

So you will need to look to your own bylaws and any special rules of order you may have adopted to answer this question.

[Guest Guest]

Devil's advocate...

So, I rise -- Point of information! Mr. Secretary we lack a quorum. He snarls back -- yes, we do have a quorum!

And, I say -- Prove it please.

What happens?

And, I am not kidding -- there is a small group (here) that basically wants to conceal "who" is at the meetings. The only purpose for this is (that I can see) is so their cronies stay in power -- even if they do not attend the meetings.

I find it hard to believe that RONR has no "attendance" rulings on file.

Consider - I was not at a meeting a year ago and one of the "bad actors" stated to me -- with a sly grin -- "Well, you know that Susan. You were at that meeting -- and voted for it."

I'm really asking about validating who was at the meeting -- using the methods/standard of legal phrase (statutes of frauds).

RONR has been around a long time -- surely, this has come up before. The bad guys -- with guile -- have to be stopped (somehow).

[jstackpo]

One way to "validate" who is there is move that a vote on some issue be taken by roll call. If a majority go along with you and a roll call is ordered (good luck with your presiding officer; perhaps it it time for a new one) you will have your list in the minutes.

[Guest Guest]

- thanks. I already tried this. The cronies ( I affectionately call them this ) immediately moved for the body assembled (of their cronies) to have a show of hands -- Who wants to call the roll? I lost.

This is such a glaring hole in a legitimate record of who is in attendance at the meeting -- I just cannot believe that RONR has not addressed it.

I wonder what could be the logical reason for not creating a valid attendance list of "Who" is really present?

Even in grade school -- I recall them taking attendance each day.

Thanks again -- though!

[Gary c Tesser]

"Cause it's not grade school, and deliberative assemblies don't generally require attendance monitors. Please believe it, Susan HROA -- try getting the CD of RONR's 10th Edition (or, mirabile dictu, if the CD of the 11th comes out soon) and do some searches for attendance lists or whatever: you'll come up empty. This is just not a Robert's Rules issue.

Gary Novosielski's last point (post 2) was suggestive, though: if there is no special rule about it, you (the organization) can make one. Or move that the secretary call the roll, and that all proxies be identified ... or whatever you need. Just be sure that your allies are lined up -- it looks as if, with the roll-call incident, no one had your back.

"MY QUESTION: How is a legitimate attendance record created?"

MY ANSWER: By adopting a motion.

(Couple more incidental things. Please, please remember to fill in your name. "Guest_Guest" is exasperatingly nonspecific, especially with so many "Guest_Guest's" rattling around.

(In Post 3, Susan, what you needed was to raise a point of order, which calls attention to the violation of the rules, rather than "information," which actually is not to make a point, but to request information. (In fact, they now call it a request for information, which is a much less misleading name.))

[Tim Wynn]

Devil's advocate...

So, I rise -- Point of information! Mr. Secretary we lack a quorum. He snarls back -- yes, we do have a quorum!

This would be a point of order, and it is the chair who will rule on the point, not the secretary. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 349, ll. 16-21, along with section 23.

And, I say -- Prove it please.

What happens?

This is an appeal from the ruling of the chair, since she ruled the point of order not well taken. If your appeal gets a second, the matter of whether or not a quorum is present is taken out of the hands of the chair and placed in the hands of the assembly, which will make the determination by vote, a majority required to overturn the ruling of the chair. See RONR (11th ed.), section 24.

And, I am not kidding -- there is a small group (here) that basically wants to conceal "who" is at the meetings. The only purpose for this is (that I can see) is so their cronies stay in power -- even if they do not attend the meetings.

I find it hard to believe that RONR has no "attendance" rulings on file.

Consider - I was not at a meeting a year ago and one of the "bad actors" stated to me -- with a sly grin -- "Well, you know that Susan. You were at that meeting -- and voted for it."

I'm really asking about validating who was at the meeting -- using the methods/standard of legal phrase (statutes of frauds).

RONR has been around a long time -- surely, this has come up before. The bad guys -- with guile -- have to be stopped (somehow).

As long as a quorum is present, it doesn't matter which members are at the meeting. This issue has come up before, and RONR has addressed it, just not in the way that you expected.

[Guest Guest]

-- again , I thank all of you for the good input.

To the respondent who commented -- "it doesn't matter which members are at the meeting."

Sorry, you are missing my point (may well be that I am failing to describe the situ)

The "bad actors" don't care WHO is at the meeting - not really.

They will just "cook the books" after the meeting.

I care WHO is at the meeting.

I want only eligible voters to "vote" on issues.

I want there to be a quorum formed of only eligible voters.

I don't know if this forum is aware that about 53 million Americans live under these quasi-Governments -- called HOA Boards.

This is huge (in America) - really.

Again, I thank you for your inputs.

I just thought that RR was more introspective of protecting the process from a group of bad actors bent on gaming the process with their planted cronies.

A valid attendence list of who was actually present at the meeting just seems fundamental to me.

I guess that I was wrong.

Thanks again.

[Guest Edgar]

I want there to be a quorum formed of only eligible voters.

Then don't let anyone but members (aka "eligible voters") in the room.

And, if you're still "Susan", then "Guest" doesn't do you (or us) justice. And this "Guest" business seems to be increasingly troublesome for Mr. Tesser and he seems to be teetering on the brink as it is.

VtdQku

[Tim Wynn]

-- again , I thank all of you for the good input.

To the respondent who commented -- "it doesn't matter which members are at the meeting."

Sorry, you are missing my point (may well be that I am failing to describe the situ)

The "bad actors" don't care WHO is at the meeting - not really.

They will just "cook the books" after the meeting.

I care WHO is at the meeting.

I want only eligible voters to "vote" on issues.

I want there to be a quorum formed of only eligible voters.

I don't know if this forum is aware that about 53 million Americans live under these quasi-Governments -- called HOA Boards.

This is huge (in America) - really.

Again, I thank you for your inputs.

I just thought that RR was more introspective of protecting the process from a group of bad actors bent on gaming the process with their planted cronies.

A valid attendence list of who was actually present at the meeting just seems fundamental to me.

I guess that I was wrong.

Thanks again.

RONR has a rule that a quorum must be present for the transaction of business. Anyone who is determined to violate that rule is unlikely to be hindered by another rule dictating the use of a sign in sheet.

I'm familiar with HOA boards, and I've had success restoring control to members. The members are the key element. If no one cares to make a change, it won't be made.

You should start by gathering support from the membership for a specific plan.