Incomplete main motion

[Guest wphelan@profcam1.com]

A Motion was made and seconded. The Chair accepted the motion and asked for a voice vote. It appeared that the aye's were loudest. He then asked for a show of hands. In our organization. members have varied votes based on lots owned. The show of hands was objected to. The Chair stated that they did not know how to count the variable vote total and moved on to additional aganda items. Can this be done or does the main motion have to be completed?

 

A second motion to table was made and seconded. before a vote could be taken a member stated the motion was printed on the ballot so lets vote. The chair allowed the item to be voted on, even though the motion to table had been made.

[Josh Martin]

A Motion was made and seconded. The Chair accepted the motion and asked for a voice vote. It appeared that the aye's were loudest. He then asked for a show of hands. In our organization. members have varied votes based on lots owned. The show of hands was objected to. The Chair stated that they did not know how to count the variable vote total and moved on to additional aganda items. Can this be done or does the main motion have to be completed?

 

No, of course it is not appropriate for the chair to say "I don't know how to figure this out, so forget about this motion" and move on. It seems that the vote should have been taken by ballot or roll call (or whatever else you can figure out to factor in the fact that some members have multiple votes).

 

A second motion to table was made and seconded. before a vote could be taken a member stated the motion was printed on the ballot so lets vote. The chair allowed the item to be voted on, even though the motion to table had been made.

 

The chair should not have simply ignored the motion to Lay on the Table. Most likely, he should have ruled it out of order and informed the member of what the proper motion was to accomplish his objective. See FAQ #12 and FAQ #13. In the unlikely event that the motion to Lay on the Table was used properly, then he should have stated the question on that motion.

 

Of course, it is too late to complain about any of this now. Next time, a member should be prepared to promptly raise a Point of Order when the chair does something wrong.

[Guest Guest]

Mr. Martin;

Thank you, The Secretary had available a listing of members and that members vote total. I believe the chair should have had the Secretary call the roll and report the results. I also feel that moving on in the meeting could not be done until this matter was settled. Would the rest of the meeting actions be void?

 

[Josh Martin]

The Secretary had available a listing of members and that members vote total. I believe the chair should have had the Secretary call the roll and report the results. I also feel that moving on in the meeting could not be done until this matter was settled. Would the rest of the meeting actions be void?

 

No. As previously noted, a member should have raised a Point of Order at the time. It's too late now. Just try again with this motion at the next meeting.

[Richard Brown]

No. As previously noted, a member should have raised a Point of Order at the time. It's too late now. Just try again with this motion at the next meeting.

I agree with Josh.  But, a member who raises a point of order also needs to be prepared to appeal the ruling of the chair... and to know how to do it.  And to have someone to second the appeal.  And, based on what appears to be somewhat of a lack of knowledge of procedure by the chair, that member needs to be prepared to explain what an appeal is and how it works.  Hopefully, that is something the chair already knows, but I wouldn't hold my breath based on the way he handled the voting issue.

 

You might consider buying the chair a copy of RONR in Brief (only about seven dollars) or a copy of RONR.  Or both.

 

http://www.robertsrules.com/book.html

http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html

[Guest Guest]

There were points of order made. The chair refused to hear them and was against any motions. He initially ruled that he would accept no floor nominations. When they were made he just ignored them and only allowed what he wanted to do. I asked to table consideration of Amended By-Laws. He allowed vote anyway. New President certified them and registered them with County. I forced their withdrawal because the 2/3 rds rules was not secured. Guess an Attorney is only thing to stop this.

[Richard Brown]

There were points of order made. The chair refused to hear them and was against any motions. He initially ruled that he would accept no floor nominations. When they were made he just ignored them and only allowed what he wanted to do. I asked to table consideration of Amended By-Laws. He allowed vote anyway. New President certified them and registered them with County. I forced their withdrawal because the 2/3 rds rules was not secured. Guess an Attorney is only thing to stop this.

It sounds like you might well need legal help and more help from a parliamentary standpoint than we can provide on this board.  We will do what we can, though.

 

For parliamentary procedure help, you might contact either or both of these nationwide organizations for a referral to a credentialed parliamentarian.  Some are also attorneys, which might be helpful to you, especially if you find one in your state.  The NAP also has state "associations" in almost all state and local "units" in many cities.  Those local units can be a good source of information and help.

 

To find information on your state association or a local unit of NAP, click  on "NAP in My Area" on the drop down menu from the "+About" tab at the top of the page.   For a list of credentialed parliamentarians, from the home page, scroll down the page just a bit and click on "Find a Parlamentarian" right below the large picture.   You can search for a credentialed parliamentarian in your area using various criteria or you can just scroll through the list.  Note:  Not all credentialed parliamentarians are listed and there are also many excellent parliamentarians who are not credentialed or listed and may not be members of either national  association.

 

In the meantime, keep asking your questions and we'll keep trying to help you.  Keep in mind that we cannot give legal advice.  That is beyond the scope of this forum.   Good luck!

 

National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP)

213 South Main St.

Independence, MO  64050-3850

Phone: 888-627-2929

e-mail: hq@NAP2.org  

www.parliamentarians.org

American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP)

618 Church Street, Ste 220

Nashville, TN 37219

Phone: 888-664-0428

e-mail: aip@aipparl.org

www.aipparl.org

 

Edited to add:  If your president continues to ignore the rules, you can quite likely removing him from presiding at a particular meeting by a two-thirds vote.  See Official Interpretation 2006-2, here:  http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_2

 

If you think it might be necessary to permanently remove him from office, see FAQ # 20, here:  http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#20

 

Note that any provisions in your bylaws for removing officers would supersede the rules in RONR.

[Josh Martin]

There were points of order made. The chair refused to hear them and was against any motions. He initially ruled that he would accept no floor nominations. When they were made he just ignored them and only allowed what he wanted to do. I asked to table consideration of Amended By-Laws. He allowed vote anyway. New President certified them and registered them with County. I forced their withdrawal because the 2/3 rds rules was not secured. Guess an Attorney is only thing to stop this.

If the chair ignores a Point of Order, the proper course of action is for a member to repeat the Point of Order a second and third time, and if the chair continues to ignore the Point of Order, the member puts the question on it himself, letting the assembly decide.

As has been previously noted, the motion to Lay on the Table was most likely out of order and you are probably confusing it with a different motion. If you could explain what exactly you were trying to do, we can determine what the proper motion would have been.

These unfortunate details do not change the fact that it is too late to do anything about this from a parliamentary perspective. I still don't see any violations which would constitute a continuing breach. I would suggest, however, that the chair should be removed from office as soon as possible. See FAQ #20.

I don't know whether there might be any legal recourse. That would be a question for an attorney.

[Guest Ward Phelan]

In this meeting which is held once per year for the entire Membership of the Association. The business to be conducted is reports and election of a Board of Directors. One of which is elected at large and serves as the President for a one year term. In this meeting also, our outgoing President appointed one man to rewrite the Associations By-Laws.

One of the Presidential Candidates supported adopting the Amended By-Laws, One of the Candidates did not. He moved to table the consideration of adopting the By-Laws until they could be studied by the newly elected Board and reintroduced at a Special Called Meeting. The By-Laws did not pass by the required 2/3rds of all Association Members, but was signed and certified by the new President as having passed at the meeting. Attested to by a Notary Public and registered with the County Clerk.

 

Myself and a group of members have decided that the only way to stop this group is to hire an Attorney and demand accountability. We will demand the Annual Meeting be declared to have been improper and to reschedule it.  If that does not work a full lawsuit, with the judge deciding will be filed. BY the way, FYI, this is a Property Owners Association in Texas.

[Josh Martin]

He moved to table the consideration of adopting the By-Laws until they could be studied by the newly elected Board and reintroduced at a Special Called Meeting. The By-Laws did not pass by the required 2/3rds of all Association Members, but was signed and certified by the new President as having passed at the meeting. Attested to by a Notary Public and registered with the County Clerk.

Thank you. This is not a proper motion to Lay on the Table. That motion is used to temporarily set aside the pending motion so that some other urgent business may be considered. Based on the member's goals, it seems to me that the motion to Commit would have been the best option.

As previously noted, however, the chair should not have simply ignored the motion. Rather, he should have ruled it out of order and informed the member of the proper motion.

[Richard Brown]

. . . . The By-Laws did not pass by the required 2/3rds of all Association Members, but was signed and certified by the new President as having passed at the meeting. Attested to by a Notary Public and registered with the County Clerk.

You said the bylaws amendments "did not pass" but the new president says they did pass and has had something attested to by a Notary Public and registered (filed?) with the country clerk.

 

Question:  What announcement  did the chair make about the outcome of the vote at the conclusion of the voting?  He should have said either the motion (or amendments) are adopted or the motion (or amendments) failed.   What exactly did he say at the time with regard to whether the bylaw amendments have been approved or adopted?

 

What do the minutes (or the draft minutes) say about it?   

 

Has the chair maintained all along that the amendments passed or did he change his mind at some point after the vote?

 

And who was presiding at the time?   The outgoing president or the incoming one?  Do the two presidents disagree on the outcome of the vote? 

 

If the new president is trying to "rewrite history", you might want to consider disciplinary action against him.  It's covered in great detail in the 26 pages of Chapter XX in RONR.   Depending on the wording of your bylaws, it might be relatively easy or extremely difficult to remove him.  See Frequently Asked Question No 20 for starters:  http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#20

 

Edited to fix a typographical error.

 

Edited again to ask the original poster:  What was the vote count on the vote to adopt the bylaws amendments?   What type vote was it?  Show of hands?  Yeas and nays?  Rising?   Counted rising vote?  Roll call vote?   Secret ballot?

[Guest Guest]

Sorry, I have been meeting with several Attorney Groups to get one to fix this mess.

 

The vote count was 80 in favor and 47.5 against. The By-Law require a minimum of 2/3rds of all members of the Association. to be passed it would have had to secured 96 votes.

 

This vote was listed on a ballot form for each individual stating the question and requesting a Yea or Nay marking of the Ballot.

 

That is why I cannot believe that the OLD President could not accept a motion and if nothiung else have the secretary call the roll as per the Member/number of Votes and yea or Nay.

 

 

[Richard Brown]

The vote count was 80 in favor and 47.5 against. The By-Law require a minimum of 2/3rds of all members of the Association. to be passed it would have had to secured 96 votes.

What is the EXACT wording in the bylaws about the vote required to amend them?

 

And how were 47.5 no votes cast?   Someone owns half a lot?

 

btw, if the requirement is simply "a two thirds vote of the membership", and is based on the members present and voting, and 47.5 no votes were cast, then 95 yes votes, not 96, would be necessary for the required two thirds vote.  How do you figure that 96 would be required?  You need twice as many yes votes as no votes.