Conditions of "yea" vote not met - now what?

[Guest Susan]

Our HOA board voted to do three things - get a documents review from an attorney, ask a specific question regarding the use of the word "shall" in the documents of the attorney, and ask the attorney for feedback regarding live streaming of meetings - and motion was seconded and passed with a $1000 cap in spending.

Upon speaking to the attorney, the cost of the document review alone is $1000, thus the two additional items included in the motion cannot be done.

What happens to the vote?  Is there "language" (an area in RRoR) that can be cited to support the response?  The board disagrees strongly about the topics in the motion, thus I want to be sure the next step is validated by our governing rules (RRoR).

Thank you!

[Guest Zev]

Just a wild stab at this. There are three questions and one spending cap covered by this motion. Since none of it apparently was performed, as a parliamentary issue, a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted would be used to eliminate one or more questions, or perhaps include other questions, and to also modify the spending cap. Is this what you were looking for?

[Guest Susan]

Can I amend something previously adopted and suggest an entirely different approach?  And is it actually adopted if it can't be fulfilled in whole because of the spending cap?

[Guest Zev]

32 minutes ago, Guest Susan said:

Can I amend something previously adopted and suggest an entirely different approach?

Yes. The new approach could be anything since nothing in the original motion seems to have been fulfilled. For example, if the attorney answered the first item by providing a review as indicated in the first question and took the $1,000 as his fee, then the only two remaining items could conceivably be modified and a new fee cap established.

37 minutes ago, Guest Susan said:

And is it actually adopted if it can't be fulfilled in whole because of the spending cap?

If the society is unwilling to increase the spending cap then it appears as though the motion needs to be modified to exclude enough items to satisfy the fee the attorney will charge. Otherwise it seems as though the society will ask three questions and pay for only one and the attorney will decide for himself which one to answer.

[Richard Brown]

As I read the question, the motion did not specify any particular attorney.  If that's the case, you have at least one other option:  Try to find an attorney who will do all three things for a fee not to exceed $1,000.

[jstackpo]

Another approach to "What happens to the vote?" is to consider that just it would be dilatory to move, say, that "all the members levitate up to the ceiling now and dust the light bulbs" it is also dilatory to request a lawyer to do work for what turns out to be less than his/her usual and customary fees.  A point or order that the dilatory motion should not have been introduced in the first place would cause the whole works to go away and you could start over with a clean slate.

 

[Atul Kapur]

7 hours ago, Guest Susan said:

And is it actually adopted if it can't be fulfilled in whole because of the spending cap?

Yes, the motion has actually been adopted. However, the action has not been executed.

I must disagree with Dr. Stackpole. The motion that was adopted was not dilatory, rather it was conditional. We are now informed that the condition cannot be met, so I agree with the others who suggest that a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted is the proper course of action.

 

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Atul Kapur said:

Yes, the motion has actually been adopted. However, the action has not been executed.

I must disagree with Dr. Stackpole. The motion that was adopted was not dilatory, rather it was conditional. We are now informed that the condition cannot be met, so I agree with the others who suggest that a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted is the proper course of action.

 

I concur with Dr. Kapur's opinion.

[J. J.]

On 5/31/2019 at 7:32 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Yes, the motion has actually been adopted. However, the action has not been executed.

I must disagree with Dr. Stackpole. The motion that was adopted was not dilatory, rather it was conditional. We are now informed that the condition cannot be met, so I agree with the others who suggest that a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted is the proper course of action.

 

I concur, in part.  

The part of the motion capping the amount that could be spent was not dilatory.  Guests Susan has indicated that this was one motion.  It is rather common to put a condition within a motion, e.g. "to purchase [something] for not more than [a specific amount of money]." 

 

I disagree with Dr. Kapur, only to the extent that he claims that the condition cannot be met.  Unless there is a desire to do either to cancel the document review and/or questions, or to permit more money to be spent to do it, or to have a specific attorney do it, the motion remains in effect.   The motion will remain in effect until that condition is met which is very possible. 

Mr. Brown noted:

On 5/31/2019 at 6:00 AM, Richard Brown said:

As I read the question, the motion did not specify any particular attorney.  If that's the case, you have at least one other option:  Try to find an attorney who will do all three things for a fee not to exceed $1,000.

His comments best describe the current state of the motion, i.e. the motion, as given here, authorizes the society to hire an attorney who will do these things for no more that $1000.  It is a question of finding an attorney who will charge less.  Considering the number of attorneys in the United States, there is the very good  possibility that one would be willing to do that for that price (or even pro bono).  That does not suggest that Susan's group would necessarily be happy with the quality of that attorney's work. 

If there is a desire to limit the questions to be asked, or to increase the amount of money to be spend for these things, then Amend Something Previously Adopted is the correct method for doing it.