Tomm Posted October 16, 2019 at 09:04 PM Report Share Posted October 16, 2019 at 09:04 PM Our organization has Cardholder's and Member's. Cardholder's are typically renters that don't own property. Member's own property, so there's basically 2 levels of membership. Question: If a motion that requires previous notice was made to allow Cardholder's certain privileges, but amended when presented to the assembly to strike out Cardholder's and insert Members, is that considered a change in the scope of notice that would require a new previous notice and starting the process all over again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted October 16, 2019 at 09:15 PM Report Share Posted October 16, 2019 at 09:15 PM Since we are talking about two different classes of membership and the proposed amendment was changed from bestowing privileges on Class A to giving those privileges to Class B only I would say such amendment would not be within the scope of notice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 16, 2019 at 09:50 PM Report Share Posted October 16, 2019 at 09:50 PM (edited) 46 minutes ago, Tomm said: Our organization has Cardholder's and Member's. Cardholder's are typically renters that don't own property. Member's own property, so there's basically 2 levels of membership. Question: If a motion that requires previous notice was made to allow Cardholder's certain privileges, but amended when presented to the assembly to strike out Cardholder's and insert Members, is that considered a change in the scope of notice that would require a new previous notice and starting the process all over again? If a motion does in fact require scope of notice (with no alternatives permitted), then an amendment which exceeds the scope of notice is out of order. So if an amendment to strike “cardholders” and insert “members” is outside the scope of notice, the amendment should be ruled out of order. As to the question of whether the proposed amendment exceeds the scope of notice, I have some clarifying questions. What is the relationship between the rights of cardholders and those of members? Do members have all the rights of cardholders, plus some additional rights? Or are there some rights which cardholders have, but members do not (and vice versa)? In the former case, it seems to me the amendment is within scope. In the latter case, it is not. Edited October 16, 2019 at 09:52 PM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted October 16, 2019 at 10:23 PM Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2019 at 10:23 PM If the motion passes, then Member's will have the right to speak in debate at Board meetings but Cardholder's will not! (This motion was presented at a Board meeting) I believe, if passed, this would also require a Special Rule of Order, which raises another question...? Is this the type of Special Rule that would, in fact, require previous notice? Special Rules of Order have two different requirements to pass, previous notice and 2/3rds or majority of the entire membership. When is the previous notice option required? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted October 17, 2019 at 02:16 AM Report Share Posted October 17, 2019 at 02:16 AM 3 hours ago, Tomm said: Special Rules of Order have two different requirements to pass, previous notice and 2/3rds or majority of the entire membership. When is the previous notice option required? When adopting special rules of order, either of the two will suffice. On the original question, I agree that we need to know the relationship between these two. Are all members also cardholders? Also, can anyone currently speak at board meetings (other than the board, I mean)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted October 17, 2019 at 04:05 AM Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2019 at 04:05 AM From the Bylaws: A. "Cardholder(s)" is defined as a Member and/or Privilege Cardholder(s). G. "Member(s) or "Membership" is defined as Owner(s) who meet the Member qualification. Once Member qualifications are verified by the Cardholder Services Office, Member status shall be established and a Member Card with Owner's photo shall be issued by the Corporation. Members in good standing shall be considered as the membership of the Corporation. I. "Member(s) in good standing" is defined as a Member whose assessments, fees and any and all other charges are current for all Properties in which the Owner has an ownership interest and who's Member Privileges are not suspended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 17, 2019 at 01:30 PM Report Share Posted October 17, 2019 at 01:30 PM (edited) 15 hours ago, Tomm said: I believe, if passed, this would also require a Special Rule of Order, which raises another question...? Is this the type of Special Rule that would, in fact, require previous notice? Special Rules of Order have two different requirements to pass, previous notice and 2/3rds or majority of the entire membership. When is the previous notice option required? For adopting a special rule of order, it is always the case that either previous notice and a 2/3 vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership is sufficient. If an amendment was adopted which exceeded the scope of notice, then only a vote of a majority of the entire membership would be sufficient. 9 hours ago, Tomm said: From the Bylaws: A. "Cardholder(s)" is defined as a Member and/or Privilege Cardholder(s). G. "Member(s) or "Membership" is defined as Owner(s) who meet the Member qualification. Once Member qualifications are verified by the Cardholder Services Office, Member status shall be established and a Member Card with Owner's photo shall be issued by the Corporation. Members in good standing shall be considered as the membership of the Corporation. I. "Member(s) in good standing" is defined as a Member whose assessments, fees and any and all other charges are current for all Properties in which the Owner has an ownership interest and who's Member Privileges are not suspended. Based on these additional facts, my understanding of the situation is as follows: -The status quo is that only board members may speak in debate at board meetings. -The originally proposed rule would permit all cardholders (which includes both members and privileged cardholders) to speak in debate at board meetings. -The proposed amendment would make it so that members, but not privileged cardholders, may speak at board meetings. Because the proposed amendment (board members and members) is in between the original proposed rule (board members, members, and privileged cardholders) and the status quo (board members only), it is within the scope of notice, since it is a lesser change than what was originally proposed. Edited October 17, 2019 at 01:30 PM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts