Newbie Posted January 21, 2019 at 05:44 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 at 05:44 PM Our relatively young HOA employs a BOD of 7 Directors. Most are either unaware of or unfamiliar with RRs. I've been diligently attempting to come up to speed on parliamentary procedures. When I refer to either our governing documents or RRs many members are skeptical that what I'm claiming is incorrect. This, despite the fact that I always provide citations and/or cut and paste relevant sections in e-mails or word documents. As a board, we've done some things that we shouldn't have. Some relate to our Bylaws which I won't discuss in this forum. One thing we did was to suppress a resident's voting rights in our most recent election. The resident was not even aware that their vote wasn't counted. I now have a very good understanding of that matter due to RRs inclusion of the definition of "good standing". And in our case, our governing documents do not document the removal of voting rights or other common privileges. We have one board member that wants to scrap our using RRs as our parliamentary process. Our state statue provides this guidance: " III. Except as otherwise provided in the bylaws, meetings of the association shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent edition of Roberts' Rules of Order Newly Revised." The arguments for this proposal are along the lines of: Has anyone read RRs? Six hundred pages! Who reads RRs?! I've found a document that we can utilize and it's only 11 pages. What's better, 11 pages or 600 pages?? I'm going to send you all a link to it so you can review it and we can discuss it at our next meeting. As someone new to RRs, I must say that it is a bit overwhelming especially at first (and even at second). But I'm willing to get into it and try to understand how things are supposed to work. Sadly, many of our board members are likely to embrace the "rules of order (extremely lite)" version. I fear we will get into trouble going this route. These folks likely believe that we can simply adopt this new document with a simple majority vote in a board meeting. I believe it would take an amendment to our Bylaws and that would require a two-thirds vote of the entire membership of our 26 units (18 out of 26, correct?). I've attached this proposed document in the event someone wishes to offer some suggestions as to why we shouldn't go this route. I have some thoughts, which I'll not enter now. But it would feel like entering a demolition derby driving a tricycle and wearing only knee pads. Thanx for any guidance. The document attached contains highlights that are mine. If this violates any forum guidelines, please let me know. The document does allow use by various associations provided the copyright remains intact. Perhaps some of you are already familiar with this document. Proposed Rules of Order.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted January 21, 2019 at 05:51 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 at 05:51 PM 4 minutes ago, Newbie said: I've found a document that we can utilize and it's only 11 pages. What's better, 11 pages or 600 pages?? 600. How did it get to be 600 pages? Because it started with fewer (maybe not 11, but fewer) and then situations came up which the rules could not resolve, or in which the rules provided for unfair outcomes, so additional rules were added. What is better - fairer and thorough, or unfair and less thorough? 5 minutes ago, Newbie said: Has anyone read RRs? Six hundred pages! Who reads RRs?! Well, I have - but you can also, besides reading it, bring it to meetings, and look things up in the rare event that something outside the "norm" arises. Meanwhile, you can read RONRIB to know how to handle the routine bits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 21, 2019 at 05:59 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 at 05:59 PM And to think I've read 716 numbered pages plus the introductory pages since the 11th Edition came out when I really only needed to read 600? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted January 21, 2019 at 06:02 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 at 06:02 PM "Don't go see that movie. It takes 2 hours! I can just tell you the ending in 30 seconds. What's better, 2 hours or 30 seconds?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 21, 2019 at 10:28 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 at 10:28 PM 4 hours ago, Newbie said: Our relatively young HOA employs a BOD of 7 Directors. Most are either unaware of or unfamiliar with RRs. I've been diligently attempting to come up to speed on parliamentary procedures. When I refer to either our governing documents or RRs many members are skeptical that what I'm claiming is incorrect. This, despite the fact that I always provide citations and/or cut and paste relevant sections in e-mails or word documents. As a board, we've done some things that we shouldn't have. Some relate to our Bylaws which I won't discuss in this forum. One thing we did was to suppress a resident's voting rights in our most recent election. The resident was not even aware that their vote wasn't counted. I now have a very good understanding of that matter due to RRs inclusion of the definition of "good standing". And in our case, our governing documents do not document the removal of voting rights or other common privileges. We have one board member that wants to scrap our using RRs as our parliamentary process. Our state statue provides this guidance: " III. Except as otherwise provided in the bylaws, meetings of the association shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent edition of Roberts' Rules of Order Newly Revised." The arguments for this proposal are along the lines of: Has anyone read RRs? Six hundred pages! Who reads RRs?! I've found a document that we can utilize and it's only 11 pages. What's better, 11 pages or 600 pages?? I'm going to send you all a link to it so you can review it and we can discuss it at our next meeting. As someone new to RRs, I must say that it is a bit overwhelming especially at first (and even at second). But I'm willing to get into it and try to understand how things are supposed to work. Sadly, many of our board members are likely to embrace the "rules of order (extremely lite)" version. I fear we will get into trouble going this route. These folks likely believe that we can simply adopt this new document with a simple majority vote in a board meeting. I believe it would take an amendment to our Bylaws and that would require a two-thirds vote of the entire membership of our 26 units (18 out of 26, correct?). I've attached this proposed document in the event someone wishes to offer some suggestions as to why we shouldn't go this route. I have some thoughts, which I'll not enter now. But it would feel like entering a demolition derby driving a tricycle and wearing only knee pads. Thanx for any guidance. The document attached contains highlights that are mine. If this violates any forum guidelines, please let me know. The document does allow use by various associations provided the copyright remains intact. Perhaps some of you are already familiar with this document. Proposed Rules of Order.pdf Those "proposed rules" are woefully inadequate for any serious use. But if you enjoy debating the rules themselves rather than debating substantive matters, it may be just the ticket for you. RONRIB, the "In Brief" book, is far superior and when unusual situations occur it has references to the larger RONR book without the need to search 700 pages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 22, 2019 at 01:41 AM Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 at 01:41 AM (edited) 21 hours ago, Newbie said: I believe it would take an amendment to our Bylaws and that would require a two-thirds vote of the entire membership of our 26 units (18 out of 26, correct?). Well, it will almost certainly require an amendment to your bylaws. Your bylaws may currently provide that RONR is your parliamentary authority, and even if they do not, you say that state law provides that RONR is the parliamentary authority unless otherwise provided in the bylaws. In addition, even the rules this member proposes to adopt notes “In many cases, it may be necessary for the Association to amend its bylaws to specifically adopt these rules. Again, the board simply must consult with its attorney regarding these issues.” (Although the author appears to argue with himself on this point, as he later claims that these rules may be adopted by a simple board resolution and need only be adopted in the bylaws if the association deems it necessary.) I am not familiar with the provisions in your bylaws concerning their amendment, so I do not know whether it is correct that this “would require a two-thirds vote of the entire membership of our 26 units (18 out of 26, correct?),” although I can confirm that your math is correct. 21 hours ago, Newbie said: I've attached this proposed document in the event someone wishes to offer some suggestions as to why we shouldn't go this route. I have some thoughts, which I'll not enter now. But it would feel like entering a demolition derby driving a tricycle and wearing only knee pads. Thanx for any guidance. The document attached contains highlights that are mine. If this violates any forum guidelines, please let me know. The document does allow use by various associations provided the copyright remains intact. Perhaps some of you are already familiar with this document. I’ve seen a number of “alternatives” to RONR, but this particular one is new. These rules have a number of problems. I started a more comprehensive list, but it got too long, so I’ve boiled it down to two general problems. The rules grant too much power to the chair and to the majority. Virtually all decisions (if not made by unanimous consent) are made by majority vote or by the chair, subject to appeal by majority vote. This grants virtually unfettered power to a majority (or even a tie vote, if the chair is on your side) to do virtually anything, up to and including immediately ending debate or suspending the rules (with no limits on what rules may be suspended). There are almost no protections for the rights of the minority or of individual members. The rules provide insufficient information for the topics they cover and do not cover other topics at all. The rules state, for instance, that any motion may be reconsidered at any time, without any further explanation. I concur with my colleagues that continuing to use RONR, with the assistance of RONR In Brief, would be the preferred course of action. Even in the event that the organization ultimately chooses not to use RONR, there are still options that are far better than these proposed rules. Edited January 22, 2019 at 02:49 PM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted January 22, 2019 at 02:05 AM Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 at 02:05 AM 17 minutes ago, Josh Martin said: (Although the author appears to argue with himself on this point, as he later claims that these rules may be adopted by a simple board resolution and need only be adopted in the bylaws if the association deems it necessary.) Well, the author is an attorney... 18 minutes ago, Josh Martin said: Again, the board simply must consult with its attorney regarding these issues. The board simply must consult with its attorney regarding the choice of a parliamentary authority? There are instances where that is a good idea, but it hardly seems true in general. *** I looked over the proposed rules a bit. I've never seen this particular set before, but I was briefly a member of an organization which adopted (against my advice) a very similar set of rules. It existed for a few months, its meetings were awful, and it went out of existence. That might be a coincidence, but I think the two are related. The rules replace the previous question (2/3 vote) with a request to the chair, who can simply cut off debate - and if the chair chooses not to, that decision is appealable and decided by a majority. This makes a mockery of what "appeal" means. Even simple matters can't be easily handled. The only way to ask a speaker to speak up or use a microphone is to make a request of the chair, and to then appeal. The only way to raise a point of order is in the form of an appeal. These might (might) work when no problems are present. If a matter becomes the least bit complicated or tense, though, these rules are woefully inadequate. I joked above that they are written by an attorney, but attorneys who think that law school (where nothing touching parliamentary procedure is studied) makes them experts in the area are all too common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 22, 2019 at 03:00 PM Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 at 03:00 PM (edited) 12 hours ago, Joshua Katz said: The board simply must consult with its attorney regarding the choice of a parliamentary authority? There are instances where that is a good idea, but it hardly seems true in general. I should first note that I was quoting the author of these rules and not expressing my personal opinion. Additionally, I do not think that the author is saying that the board should consult with its attorney regarding its choice of parliamentary authority, but was merely suggesting that the board consult with its attorney regarding the process of adopting a parliamentary authority, which is a slightly less crazy idea, particularly in HOAs, which tend to be subject to numerous applicable laws. Edited January 22, 2019 at 03:00 PM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted January 22, 2019 at 05:20 PM Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 at 05:20 PM 23 hours ago, Joshua Katz said: 600. How did it get to be 600 pages? Because it started with fewer (maybe not 11, but fewer) and then situations came up which the rules could not resolve, or in which the rules provided for unfair outcomes, so additional rules were added. What is better - fairer and thorough, or unfair and less thorough? Well, I have - but you can also, besides reading it, bring it to meetings, and look things up in the rare event that something outside the "norm" arises. Meanwhile, you can read RONRIB to know how to handle the routine bits. Thanx for the comments, Josh. For me, "fairer and thorough" is preferred. For others, simplest or least amount of work regardless of outcome floats their boat. As a softball official, I do not bring my rules book to the field with me. If working a tournament where certain rules are amended, I'll print that and keep it in my pocket. Anything that is not amended by the special tournament rules revert to the standard rules. Given my current unfamiliarity w/ RONR, trying to look up something in a meeting would be very awkward. And credibility would suffer if it was something that I couldn't put my finger on immediately. And often times, reading something on one page references something in other multiple locations. That's why I try to do my homework in advance of meeting subjects and try to anticipate issues before they come up. In general, I (we) don't know the rules well enough to ensure we're doing things properly.Things like when do we need majority, two-thirds, majority of those present and voting, or majority or two-thirds of the entire community. Most softball rules have become second nature to me, RONR will take a while longer. My RONR in Brief copy should arrive any day now. "Two hundred pages?! Who reads 200 pages?? I can name that tune in 11 pages!" 😏 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted January 22, 2019 at 05:24 PM Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 at 05:24 PM 3 minutes ago, Newbie said: For me, "fairer and thorough" is preferred. For others, simplest or least amount of work regardless of outcome floats their boat. Well, it seems like a lot of work to me to deal with contentious, awkward problems without having a rule for them. But ultimately, your organization will decide how it wants to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted January 22, 2019 at 11:29 PM Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 at 11:29 PM 6 hours ago, Newbie said: Things like when do we need majority, two-thirds, majority of those present and voting, or majority or two-thirds of the entire community. There is a small 6inx4in plastic card with a summary of the motions and their various requirements. Very handy for quick reference. You can order one from the National Association of Parliamentarians. 6 hours ago, Newbie said: "Two hundred pages?! Who reads 200 pages?? Also, sophisticated organizations tackling sophisticated problems ultimately require sophisticated tools. Its not easy, but it is a fact of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted January 24, 2019 at 03:21 AM Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 at 03:21 AM On 1/22/2019 at 6:29 PM, Guest Zev said: There is a small 6inx4in plastic card with a summary of the motions and their various requirements. Very handy for quick reference. You can order one from the National Association of Parliamentarians. Also, sophisticated organizations tackling sophisticated problems ultimately require sophisticated tools. Its not easy, but it is a fact of life. Thanx, Zev. I checked out the NAP site. There were several cards which were part of an overall set. Do you know the specific card you referred to? Our group is hardly sophisticated - quite the opposite. It's why they'd prefer not to have to deal w/ RONR and deal w/ an inferior tool instead. And what happens when something comes up that their 11 pages doesn't cover?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted January 24, 2019 at 03:27 AM Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 at 03:27 AM 2 minutes ago, Newbie said: what happens when something comes up that their 11 pages doesn't cover?? What happens is that you start debating or arguing over the rules of order instead of the actual topics at hand, with some trying to bully the others. For example, from my reading of the 11 pages: is an appeal debatable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 24, 2019 at 04:13 AM Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 at 04:13 AM 36 minutes ago, Newbie said: Thanx, Zev. I checked out the NAP site. There were several cards which were part of an overall set. Do you know the specific card you referred to? I imagine Guest Zev was referring to the card titled "13 Ranking Motions". It has the 13 ranking motions on one side and incidental and bring-back motions on the other side. It tells you whether the motion can interrupt a speaker, whether it requires a second, whether it is debatable, if it is amendable, the vote required for adoption and whether it can be reconsidered. I think the individual cards are $4 for non members. I personally highly recommend the gold colored Basic Information Leaflet. It is $2 for non members but cheap in bulk quantities. I keep one folded up in my wallet and have one in each of my briefcases and have one in my coat pocket for almost every meeting I go to. Use the private message feature to send me your address and I'll send you one for free. We give one to each guest and new member at our unit meetings and give one to each attendee at our workshops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted January 24, 2019 at 04:41 AM Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 at 04:41 AM 26 minutes ago, Richard Brown said: I imagine Guest Zev was referring to the card titled "13 Ranking Motions". Yes, that is the one. Thank you Mr. Brown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted January 26, 2019 at 03:08 PM Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2019 at 03:08 PM Thanx to all that replied. While I am still awaiting delivery of my RONR in Brief copy, I've gone over the "proposed rules" several times. There are definitely a lot of aspects of that document that I don't care for. Being new to parliamentary activity, I'm not sure I can even properly express why I don't like some of them - they just seem a bit off. At the same time, there are some things that I wouldn't mind including. One of those is this one: "Minutes should state precisely each motion considered by the board, and identify the board members voting in favor, against, or abstaining..." I would like our association members to know exactly who voted for and against various motions. My inexperienced knowledge of RONR thinks this would be the roll call vote which may only be applicable in certain situations. Can we make a special rule that says all votes would be by roll call method? So without being too long-winded on this matter, would it be appropriate for our board to perhaps cherry pick some items from the proposed rules and use those to develop our own "Special Rules of Order"? I think we can put in the "Special Rules of Order" as a board with previous notice and a two-thirds vote (or a majority of the entire membership). Is that correct? Trying to get a majority or two-thirds of the entire membership would be tough because a lot of folks may not have enough interest in the matter. If going this route is permissible, I'd appreciate any guidance and specific wording for a motion to do so. And, any special rules that folks have found to be useful. (One that I've seen a few times is about the length of time members are allowed to speak and to change that from the RONR 10 minutes to maybe 3 minutes.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 26, 2019 at 04:41 PM Report Share Posted January 26, 2019 at 04:41 PM 1 hour ago, Newbie said: Can we make a special rule that says all votes would be by roll call method? Yes, but that’s a terrible idea because it would take forever. Do you really want a roll call vote on a motion to recess for five minutes, for instance? The solution to this is generally to either require roll call votes only on certain types of motions or to provide for a certain number or proportion of members that may demand a roll call vote. 1 hour ago, Newbie said: So without being too long-winded on this matter, would it be appropriate for our board to perhaps cherry pick some items from the proposed rules and use those to develop our own "Special Rules of Order"? Yes. 1 hour ago, Newbie said: I think we can put in the "Special Rules of Order" as a board with previous notice and a two-thirds vote (or a majority of the entire membership). Is that correct? Trying to get a majority or two-thirds of the entire membership would be tough because a lot of folks may not have enough interest in the matter. Well, the majority of the entire membership refers to the membership of the body that is meeting. So for a board, it’s a majority of the board members. Unless you have a very large board, that shouldn’t be too difficult. I would note, however, that a subordinate board does not have the authority to adopt special rules of order which conflict with any rules of the society (including RONR, if that is your parliamentary authority) unless authorized to do so by the bylaws or by the membership, so double check your bylaws. “The executive board of an organized society operates under the society's bylaws, the society's parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules of the society which may be applicable to it. Such a board may adopt its own special rules of order or standing rules only to the extent that such rules do not conflict with any of the rules of the society listed above... A board that is not a part of a society can adopt its own rules, provided that they do not conflict with anything in the legal instrument under which the board is constituted.” (RONR 11th ed., pg. 486) 1 hour ago, Newbie said: If going this route is permissible, I'd appreciate any guidance and specific wording for a motion to do so. “I move to adopt the following as special rules of order: ...” 1 hour ago, Newbie said: And, any special rules that folks have found to be useful. Well, we discussed the roll call example, and the time to speak in debate. If the board wishes to permit members of the association to participate in board meetings in some manner, it would be advisable to adopt rules on that subject. Depending on the specifics, those may be special rules of order or standing rules. Some assemblies adopt rules requiring previous notice for broader categories of motions than RONR does, possibly with the ability to still adopt a motion without notice by a larger vote, such as 2/3. Some assemblies also require a higher vote threshold for certain motions regardless of notice. 1 hour ago, Newbie said: (One that I've seen a few times is about the length of time members are allowed to speak and to change that from the RONR 10 minutes to maybe 3 minutes.) Yes, and this is an interesting example. The board may adopt such a rule in any event, since the rule on this subject specifically provides that it applies only if there is no special rule providing otherwise. “In a nonlegislative body or organization that has no special rule relating to the length of speeches (2), a member, having obtained the floor while a debatable motion is immediately pending, can speak no longer than ten minutes unless he obtains the consent of the assembly.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 387) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted January 30, 2019 at 02:18 PM Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 at 02:18 PM Regarding use of the roll call vote, I agree that calling for a recess should not require a roll call vote that gets entered into the minutes. But I would like our association to see which directors voted for/against certain motions that either were passed or rejected. I don't think RONR specifies a roll call vote except in certain situations with board approval. So what kind of wording might be appropriate to include as a special rule of order to describe which types of motions would qualify and use a roll call vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted January 30, 2019 at 02:35 PM Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 at 02:35 PM 13 minutes ago, Newbie said: I don't think RONR specifies a roll call vote except in certain situations with board approval. That is correct. If the support for such a rule exists, though, wouldn't the lower level of support necessary to order a roll call on any particular matter usually exist too, if the matter needs one? 14 minutes ago, Newbie said: So what kind of wording might be appropriate to include as a special rule of order to describe which types of motions would qualify and use a roll call vote? I used to serve on a board where the special rules of order called for roll call votes on "substantive motions." I can't say I'd recommend that, since it led to a lot of arguing about what is substantive. Even beyond that, I thought it was annoying, for pretty much precisely the reason you state: 15 minutes ago, Newbie said: But I would like our association to see which directors voted for/against certain motions that either were passed or rejected. This is the reason my board had the rule. It turned every board decision into a political act, and led people to vote based on their reelection campaigns, not what they thought best for the organization. Something to keep in mind. In any case, you might try original main motion, but even that strikes me as too broad, and if your board isn't familiar with parliamentary terminology, it will still be unclear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 30, 2019 at 05:59 PM Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 at 05:59 PM (edited) 3 hours ago, Newbie said: Regarding use of the roll call vote, I agree that calling for a recess should not require a roll call vote that gets entered into the minutes. But I would like our association to see which directors voted for/against certain motions that either were passed or rejected. I don't think RONR specifies a roll call vote except in certain situations with board approval. So what kind of wording might be appropriate to include as a special rule of order to describe which types of motions would qualify and use a roll call vote? As Mr. Katz notes, wording the specific types of motions which will be voted on by roll call tends be to be tricky. It generally involves either classifying motions by their parliamentary nature (such as main motions) and/or or by their subject matter (such as expenditures in excess of a certain dollar amount), or something completely open to interpretation like “substantive motions.” Other organizations avoid this problem entirely and provide that, for instance, a vote of 1/5 of the members present, or a single member, or two members, or whatever, may demand a roll call vote. 3 hours ago, Joshua Katz said: In any case, you might try original main motion, but even that strikes me as too broad, and if your board isn't familiar with parliamentary terminology, it will still be unclear. I prefer the alternative which requires a certain proportion or number of members, but if they go the parliamentary route, I would recommend “Original main motions, and motions to bring a question again before the assembly which relate to original main motions or to rules of the society.” Edited January 30, 2019 at 06:02 PM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted February 4, 2019 at 03:57 PM Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2019 at 03:57 PM On 1/26/2019 at 11:41 AM, Josh Martin said: “I move to adopt the following as special rules of order: ...” In reading Robert's Rules for Dummies, on page 24 is a chart. It indicates that to adopt special rules of order requires previous notice and two-thirds vote, or a majority of the entire membership. Also found this in RONR in Tables page 6. First, since it requires two-thirds vote even with previous notice, would it matter if previous notice was not given? It would still be two-thirds, right? Or would this mean that a motion to adopt would be out of order since previous notice was not given? Second, back to the term "majority of the entire membership", I think that means our entire association in this instance, correct? Is it better to propose special rules of order one by one, or as a group of special orders? Thanx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted February 4, 2019 at 04:08 PM Report Share Posted February 4, 2019 at 04:08 PM 4 minutes ago, Newbie said: First, since it requires two-thirds vote even with previous notice, would it matter if previous notice was not given? It would still be two-thirds, right? Or would this mean that a motion to adopt would be out of order since previous notice was not given? Adopting a Special Rule of Order requires either a two-thirds vote of those present and voting if previous notice has been given or, if previous notice was not given, the vote of a majority of the entire membership. A Special Rule of Order can be adopted without previous notice but it would require the vote of a majority of the entire membership. The vote of a majority of the entire membership means exactly what it says: more than half of the entire membership must vote Yes. Explanations of the various vote thresholds are explained very thoroughly in RONR. Note: the term majority of the entire membership refers to the entire membership of which everybody is doing the voting. It might be the membership of the organization as a whole, or the entire board of directors, or the entire executive committee if this organization has such a smaller body. If you are referring to board action, it would be a majority of the entire board, not the majority of the entire membership of the organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted February 4, 2019 at 04:21 PM Report Share Posted February 4, 2019 at 04:21 PM 11 minutes ago, Richard Brown said: of which everybody is doing the voting meaning: of whichever body is doing the voting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted February 4, 2019 at 04:26 PM Report Share Posted February 4, 2019 at 04:26 PM (edited) 6 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said: meaning: of whichever body is doing the voting Thank you! I was typing (or using voice to text) on my cell phone and didn't catch that. Yes, that's what I meant! Edited February 4, 2019 at 04:30 PM by Richard Brown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nathan Zook Posted February 7, 2019 at 08:02 AM Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 at 08:02 AM On 1/21/2019 at 9:44 AM, Newbie said: As a board, we've done some things that we shouldn't have. Some relate to our Bylaws which I won't discuss in this forum. One thing we did was to suppress a resident's voting rights in our most recent election. The resident was not even aware that their vote wasn't counted. I now have a very good understanding of that matter due to RRs inclusion of the definition of "good standing". And in our case, our governing documents do not document the removal of voting rights or other common privileges. Others have stayed away from this bit, and for good cause, but I'm going to charge in. I am not a lawyer, but if I were in your position, this suppression of the voting rights of a member by a government body (the HOA), I would be more than scared enough to get in touch with a lawyer. Hopefully a friend who might give you the first five minutes for free. That's not legal advice. That's a suggestion to get some. Pick your battles, and all that, but quiet conversations with individual members expressing your concerns along these lines might go a long ways towards helping the members understand that they are on a reckless course. Of course, the specific objections to specific provisions in the proposal are also useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts