Irrelevant Motion

[J H Smith]

What are the circumstances when a motion by a BOD member will not be accepted by the Chairperson?

[Richard Brown]

The chair must "accept" the motion unless he rules it out of order, in which case the chair's ruling is subject to appeal and is decided by the assembly (in this case the board) by a majority vote.  More precisely, it takes a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair.  A tie vote sustains it.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

What are the circumstances when a motion by a BOD member will not be accepted by the Chairperson?

 

There may be reasons that the chair rules a motion out of order. For example, a motion that conflicts with the bylaws is out of order.

 

If you could provide some details, the details could help to decide if a particular motion is out of order.

[Gary c Tesser]

I was tempted to give a few examples (as, I expect, Mr Brown and Mr Huynh -- interesting, typed with all one finger! -- were too), but, while that might show off how encyclopaedic our knowledge is, and might indeed help Mr Little, as he would likely be able to pick out the one that applies to his (or her -- I've never seen "Smith" as a given name before, so as far as I can tell, it's epicene) situation -- well, there's only 168 hours in a week, as the saying goes, and we're most of us operating here under the constraints of a finite lifespan, so then maybe, as Mr Huynh, suggests, Mr LIttle, you give a little more, you get a little more.  (Not punning on "Little".  That would be inane.)

 

[Edited to preserve grammatical inaninity]

[J H Smith]

Thank you folks. I am entering more detail. The motion was made suggesting one word in a multi-page document with 26

years of interpretation and precedence is being interpreted erroneously. The document is the Articles of Organization

for the HOA.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Thank you folks. I am entering more detail. The motion was made suggesting one word in a multi-page document with 26

years of interpretation and precedence is being interpreted erroneously. The document is the Articles of Organization

for the HOA.

 

Are you amending your bylaws? A motion that will change the bylaws without going through the proper procedure of amending them (including providing previous notice) may be ruled out of order.

 

If you could provide even more info, that would be helpful.

[jstackpo]

If you are dealing with Arts of Incorp.  you may be venturing into lawyer-land, which is terra incognita for us RONR-land dwellers.

[Edgar Guest]

The motion was made suggesting one word in a multi-page document with 26 years of interpretation and precedence is being interpreted erroneously.

 

I'd say that's not a proper motion. There was a recent thread on this very topic. I'll try to find [it] but there are other "regulars" on this forum with superior search abilities so they may very well beat me to it.

[Richard Brown]

What was the basis for the chair not "accepting" the motion?  Did he state a reason at all?    You're still not giving us much to go on.  Details can be very important.

 

Exactly what did the motion propose to do?  Amend bylaws?  Articles of incorporation (Articles of Association)?   Specify the way a certain word or phrase is to be interpreted?  etc, etc

 

Edited to add:  But, even if the chair ruled the motion out of order and his ruling was correct, the ruling still could have been appealed to the assembly for a final l decision on whether the chair's ruling was correct.   The assembly, not the chair, has the ultimate authority, by means of an appeal, to  decide whether something is out of order.

[Josh Martin]

Thank you folks. I am entering more detail. The motion was made suggesting one word in a multi-page document with 26years of interpretation and precedence is being interpreted erroneously. The document is the Articles of Organizationfor the HOA.

Well, this may or may not have been in order. We'd need to know how this motion was made. Was it made as a Point of Order or Appeal when a situation involving the rule actually arose? As an amendment to the Articles of Organization? As something else entirely?

I'd say that's not a proper motion. There was a recent thread on this very topic. I'll try to find but there are other "regulars" on this forum with superior search abilities so they may very well beat me to it.

Perhaps you are referring to this thread?

[Edgar Guest]

Perhaps you are referring to this thread?

Perhaps. Thanks. You're definitely on the right track (though in that thread I was referring to an even earlier thread).

 

I recall a not-so-recent discussion which, if I recall correctly, suggested that the bylaws can only be officially "interpreted" by a ruling of the chair following a point of order following an alleged infraction. Subject, of course, to appeal. And, presumably, subject to a different ruling by a different chair at a later date.

[Josh Martin]

Perhaps. Thanks. You're definitely on the right track (though in that thread I was referring to an even earlier thread).

 

I think I may have found that thread too.

[Edgar Guest]

I think I may have found that thread too.

I think you did. Outstanding. Thanks.

 

Josh, shouldn't any determination by an assembly as to the correct interpretation of a purportedly ambiguous bylaw provision come about as a result of an appeal from a ruling by the chair (or on submission by the chair of a point of order to the assembly for its decision)? Is a main motion to interpret a bylaw provision in a certain way in order?

[Gary Novosielski]

Thank you folks. I am entering more detail. The motion was made suggesting one word in a multi-page document with 26

years of interpretation and precedence is being interpreted erroneously. The document is the Articles of Organization

for the HOA.

While that's more detail, that's certainly not enough detail.

 

Was the motion:  "I  move to suggest that the word 'sanction' on page 19, line 3 of the bylaws, which has been interpreted to mean "approve of" for 26 years, is being erroneously interpreted."

 

If it was, I'd say it should have been ruled out of order.

[J H Smith]

Thank you folks.
Additional detail. We are named in the superior document; the Articles of Organization as The XYZ Home Owners Association. 

The intent has always; until recently, been the home owner, the actual purchaser of the home CAN BE a member of the Association. 
We are a community of 400 Manufactured Homes secured to a pad ON A  land site. To purchase a home on a pad you have to submit an Application of Tenancy which enables the park owner the opportunity to be sure you have the financial means to purchase the home that populates the rental site the "pad". and you are of appropriate age and character to live within the home you have purchased.

Further on in a sentence within one of the paragraphs the "superior document"; the purchaser of the home fastened to the pad and site is referred to as a resident.
 

Some BOD members have recently interpreted the word resident in its simplest dictionary definition as "someone who lives in a place". Therefore; formatting a conclusion that if an original homeowner who still owns; but is not living in the home, sub-leases their home to a renter the renter qualifies as a home owner and thus has the right to join the home owners association. In one case the owner of the park owns a home and has a tenant living within the home the park owners own.

The irrelevant motion referred to is the motion; anyone living within any sub-leased home will be eligible to become a member of the home owners association.

For 26 years the interpretation is; only the approved purchaser(s) of the home and signers of the lease for the rental of the land site the home is fastened to "the owner" qualifies to become a member of the home owners association. 
 

[Josh Martin]

Thank you folks.

Additional detail. We are named in the superior document; the Articles of Organization as The XYZ Home Owners Association. 

The intent has always; until recently, been the home owner, the actual purchaser of the home CAN BE a member of the Association. 

We are a community of 400 Manufactured Homes secured to a pad ON A  land site. To purchase a home on a pad you have to submit an Application of Tenancy which enables the park owner the opportunity to be sure you have the financial means to purchase the home that populates the rental site the "pad". and you are of appropriate age and character to live within the home you have purchased.

Further on in a sentence within one of the paragraphs the "superior document"; the purchaser of the home fastened to the pad and site is referred to as a resident.

 

Some BOD members have recently interpreted the word resident in its simplest dictionary definition as "someone who lives in a place". Therefore; formatting a conclusion that if an original homeowner who still owns; but is not living in the home, sub-leases their home to a renter the renter qualifies as a home owner and thus has the right to join the home owners association. In one case the owner of the park owns a home and has a tenant living within the home the park owners own.

The irrelevant motion referred to is the motion; anyone living within any sub-leased home will be eligible to become a member of the home owners association.

For 26 years the interpretation is; only the approved purchaser(s) of the home and signers of the lease for the rental of the land site the home is fastened to "the owner" qualifies to become a member of the home owners association. 

 

Well, for all I know, the members in question may well be correct that the Articles of Organization have been interpreted incorrectly for 26 years, but this is beside the point. They went about it in the wrong way. The motion was indeed out of order. Either this is already what the Articles of Organization provide (in which event the motion is redundant) or it precisely the opposite of what they provide (in which event the motion is in violation of the Articles of Organization).

 

As noted previously, the appropriate method to interpret the bylaws is by raising a Point of Order or Appeal when a situation involving the rule actually arises (in this case, when a resident who is not an owner attempts to join the society) or by moving to amend the bylaws to clarify the ambiguity.