Lauriemcg Posted December 14, 2014 at 01:25 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 at 01:25 PM A few months back, an request was made to a committee to approve an architectural variance. Due to concerns over authorty of the committee on the question, it was "tabled" by the committee and the BoD was requested to meet to resolve the concern. (Conflicts in the bylaws was the underlying issue.) The BoD met 3 days later and at that meeting the issue regarding the ability of the ACC to act on the request was "tabled" until the bylaws were reviesed do to several potential conflict and concerns in their current form. A bylaws committee was formed and charged with the task to be completed a revision and present to the annual membership meeting in January. At which time the issue would then be brought back before the BoD. It is now (4 months into the bylaws work) before the BoD that by tabling the decision, the ACC has failed to meet the requirment to make a decision within 30 days (stated in CC&R doc) and therefore can continue with the change to the structure the originally requested. My argument is that there is not a case of no decision, rather it is on hold pending the completion of the task of revision of bylaws, when it will then be brought back before the BoD. However, I also see there is a quarterly timeframe such that if a meeting isn't held before the next quarter the motion dies. This is causing much consternation and frustration. We are a "young" board of a new HOA and are trying to understand what correct process and procedure is. Could you help shed some light perhaps? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted December 14, 2014 at 02:04 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 at 02:04 PM I fear you started out on the wrong foot (or better in the wrong direction) by misusing the motion to "table" (click here for what was wrong) and then what follows is beyond the rules in RONR to fix. Whether or not the people requesting the change can go ahead (because of the "no answer in 30 days" rule) is a matter for your association to sort out. See p. 588 in RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted December 14, 2014 at 02:25 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 at 02:25 PM The architectural variance has NOT been approved. If nothing is done, the status quo remains! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lauriemcg Posted December 14, 2014 at 07:05 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 at 07:05 PM At that time, the meeting had pretty much lost structure in what was as pretty informal format to begin with. And we, in the current bylaws, have not specified a proceedural authority (one of the items we are wanting to change in the revision, so that roberts rules are the procedural authority). The meeting minutes state the issue has been "tabled" until the bylaws revision is complete. I'm finding that term is thrown around somewhat in cases where meeting procedures are not identified or understood. So yes, it is very likely we started off on the wrong foot. I fear you started out on the wrong foot (or better in the wrong direction) by misusing the motion to "table" (click here for what was wrong) and then what follows is beyond the rules in RONR to fix. Whether or not the people requesting the change can go ahead (because of the "no answer in 30 days" rule) is a matter for your association to sort out. See p. 588 in RONR. This connundrum has taken me down the path of learning as much as possible about roberts rules. Not long after that meeting the President resigned and I've been elected to that position. I'm still a novice and still learning, but I think I understand better when and how to apply the motion to "lay on the table". All that is saying, the intent at that meeting was to set it aside until we understood and could address the issues with the bylaws. (By the way, we have sense been working hard at implementing structure and procedure in our meetings and I've found that very helpful!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted December 14, 2014 at 07:22 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 at 07:22 PM All that is saying, the intent at that meeting was to set it aside until we understood and could address the issues with the bylaws. You might find this recent topic instructive. I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted December 14, 2014 at 08:49 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 at 08:49 PM The motion to table was incorrect. A motion to postpone to a certain time would have been while the Committee asks for advise from the Board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted December 14, 2014 at 09:10 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 at 09:10 PM ... the current bylaws, have not specified a proceedural authority (one of the items we are wanting to change in the revision, so that roberts rules are the procedural authority)... Check this link for recommended language for the bylaws. ... This connundrum has taken me down the path of learning as much as possible about roberts rules... I suggest getting the Right Book and the In Brief version. ... I'm still a novice and still learning... That's OK! Feel free to keep coming back to the forum with more questions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauriemcg Posted December 14, 2014 at 10:30 PM Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 at 10:30 PM Thanks all for the advice so far. I did just get back from the bookstore and came back with 2 books, one being the In Brief you suggested. We will continue to figure out how to address this somewhat muddled situation and with some planning and a good turnout I hope we can get our revised bylaws approved which will also help us greatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 15, 2014 at 01:57 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 at 01:57 PM Thanks all for the advice so far. I did just get back from the bookstore and came back with 2 books, one being the In Brief you suggested. But the other one was not as suggested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted December 15, 2014 at 04:20 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 at 04:20 PM We surely hope it was The Right Book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lauriemcg Posted December 16, 2014 at 11:56 AM Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 at 11:56 AM But the other one was not as suggested?The clerk took me to the section where the books were, there were several pocket variaty and guides, but no I didn't see it. I intend to find it perhaps at an on-line store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 16, 2014 at 02:11 PM Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 at 02:11 PM The clerk took me to the section where the books were, there were several pocket variaty and guides, but no I didn't see it. I intend to find it perhaps at an on-line store. Okay, but we'd really like to know the name of this other book you purchased, so we can know whether it belongs on your bookshelf or in the garbage (or returned, if possible).There are many books written by third parties about Robert's Rules of Order. They are not all created equal.(This assumes the other book was about parliamentary procedure rather than about something completely unrelated. If it's not related, then never mind.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted December 16, 2014 at 02:56 PM Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 at 02:56 PM Okay, but we'd really like to know the name of this other book you purchased, so we can know whether it belongs on your bookshelf or in the garbage (or returned, if possible).There are many books written by third parties about Robert's Rules of Order. They are not all created equal.(This assumes the other book was about parliamentary procedure rather than about something completely unrelated. If it's not related, then never mind.)Yes, if you bought a guidebook on New Orleans, you won't find me complaining! (As long as you still get a copy of RONR sometime soon!) And if you join this illustrious forum, so you can utilize the private message/mail function, among other advantages, some of us might even make some recommendations. It's easy to join: just click on the "Become a Member" link, enter your email address, and pick a name and password and Voila!!! You're a member.... and you no longer have to fool with those aggravating captchas!! But, getting a copy of "The Right Book".... RONR, 11th edition.... is a must. There is no substitute. Other books can help you to understand it, but none of them substitute for it. Edited to add: If you can't find it in a bookstore, you can order it from Amazon for about twelve and a half bucks. You can also get it (and lots of other books on parliamentary procedure) from NAP (The National Association of Parliamentarians). http://www.parliamentarians.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lauriemcg Posted December 16, 2014 at 03:03 PM Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 at 03:03 PM Okay, but we'd really like to know the name of this other book you purchased, so we can know whether it belongs on your bookshelf or in the garbage (or returned, if possible).There are many books written by third parties about Robert's Rules of Order. They are not all created equal.(This assumes the other book was about parliamentary procedure rather than about something completely unrelated. If it's not related, then never mind.)Complete Idiot's guide to Parliamentary Procedure - Fast Track... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted December 16, 2014 at 03:13 PM Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 at 03:13 PM Complete Idiot's guide to Parliamentary Procedure - Fast Track...That one is a pretty good primer. I have it but have not studied it as thoroughly as I should.... and will, now that you have mentioned it. The author, Jim Slaughter, is a very well known and respected professional parliamentarian, attorney, and author of works on parliamentary procedure. It is pretty solidly based on RONR, but is still no substitute for the real thing. I have one of his other books in which he does take issue with RONR on some points. Others with more experience with this particular book by Mr. Slaughter may weigh in with more (and better) information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 16, 2014 at 07:14 PM Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 at 07:14 PM That one is a pretty good primer. I have it but have not studied it as thoroughly as I should.... and will, now that you have mentioned it. The author, Jim Slaughter, is a very well known and respected professional parliamentarian, attorney, and author of works on parliamentary procedure. It is pretty solidly based on RONR, but is still no substitute for the real thing. I have one of his other books in which he does take issue with RONR on some points. Others with more experience with this particular book by Mr. Slaughter may weigh in with more (and better) information. Well, they shouldn't. This isn't the place for such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.