Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Recommended Posts

Homeowners association, parliamentary authority RONR (11th ed., with the wonky blooper of the missing "not," so I'm looking at all this as if that had been corrected), nothing in our bylaws that touches on the following issue.

At our monthly board meeting this past Monday, a director brought a motion to the board for consideration.  The motion was poorly worded, so at the suggestion of the presiding officer (our president), the wording of the motion was amended before it was stated by the chair; then the amended version was seconded.  Debate ensued on the reworded motion.  A vote was taken, and the motion failed.

At which point the director who had wanted to raise the issue now re-made his original motion, as had been stated (complete with its poor wording) in his original motion, now bringing it before the board as a "new motion."  That "new motion" was seconded, and nobody raised any objection to taking another whack at it, and the presiding officer permitted the "new" unedited version of the motion.  Debate ensued.  Another vote was taken, and the motion again failed.

At which point the director who had wanted to raise the issue now tried a completely new wording, but in every substantive respect in every nature and effect of the issue, amounted to a third whack at the same motion.  Need I relate what ensued? . . . including that this third whack was not the final one? ...  or that the final result after all whacks, the motion still failed?

As I read RONR, this is not at all what our homeowners (or the board, for that matter) should have had to endure.  Alright, but what would be the best RONR rule to raise against this?  That a main motion can only come before the board one time during any one meeting on any one day?  Or are all the additional motions considered dilatory?  Or anything else out there?

And since the presiding officer did nothing to put a stop to it, should any of the other directors on the board - which had clearly indicated how they would dispose of any and all whacks at this issue - stepped forward with a point of order?  And then if either the presiding officer or any other director had put a stop to it via parliamentary procedure, would the director who had been bringing the motion have any recourse other than to bring a new motion at the next board meeting next month...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would recommend a careful reading Section 38, beginning on p. 336 - Renewal of Motions; Dilatory and Improper Motions.   From your description, since all of the motions presented basically the same question, a point of order should have been raised, yes.  The only way to really get one of them back before the assembly was for someone who voted on the prevailing side (the nay votes) to move to reconsider the vote. If adopted, that would have brought whichever question it was back before the assembly.

Oh and the best rule to cite, if they really need it, is probably p. 338, ll. 5-9. It's pretty short and sweet and straightforward.

Edited by George Mervosh
Added last sentence since I didn't answer that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner
6 hours ago, Adrien LaBombarde said:

And since the presiding officer did nothing to put a stop to it, should any of the other directors on the board - which had clearly indicated how they would dispose of any and all whacks at this issue - stepped forward with a point of order?  And then if either the presiding officer or any other director had put a stop to it via parliamentary procedure, would the director who had been bringing the motion have any recourse other than to bring a new motion at the next board meeting next month...?

"Should" they? Yes, if they are weary of the breach, but the members don't have any particular duty to see that the rules are enforced. That is the job of the chairman, who is the only one with immediate power to "put a stop to it." Your recidivist's recourse, in that event, is to appeal the decision of the chair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While not a rule, experience teaches that after the motion fails the first time, it is unlikely to gain a majority during the same session unless there is something really new to present.  If so, the motion to reconsider (page 315ff), or a motion to suspend the rules (page 260ff) would be appropriate.  

-Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...