Motion and Seconded a motion

[Gustavo Lobo]

Under the one lot owner one vote, can a lot owner who owns two or more lots, make a motion and seconded his/her own motion as he owns more than one lot?  thank you

[Bruce Lages]

I don't think so. According to RONR, a second is for the purpose of ensuring that more than one member wishes to consider a motion. Whether  a member has one or more than one vote is immaterial.

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Gustavo Lobo said:

Under the one lot owner one vote, can a lot owner who owns two or more lots, make a motion and seconded his/her own motion as he owns more than one lot?  thank you

Yes, I would think so.

[Richard Brown]

Hmm, this is getting interesting.  I tend to concur with Mr. Lages based on the language used in RONR. Unless the bylaws or some other superior rule provides otherwise, I think a motion would have to be seconded by a different MEMBER regardless of how many lots the person who made The motion light own. 

[Rob Elsman]

The answer will not be found in RONR (12th ed.), because it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that there is a one-to-one correspondence between a voting member and his one vote; thus, "one man, one vote".

Whatever the answer is for this association, it will have to be found in its other governing documents.

[Richard Brown]

Knowing that it is dangerous to disagree with a member of the authorship team, it seems to me that Sections 4.2 and sections 4.9 - 12 in the 12th edition of RONR are pretty clear that a second MEMBER must second a motion.

Edited September 12, 2020 at 06:58 PM by Richard Brown
Added everything before the comma and made a typographical correction

[Atul Kapur]

I agree with Mr. Honemann because of the rationale given by Mr. Elsman: 4:2(2) and 4:9-12 are within a context where "one member:one vote" applies.

This does not apply in the OP's situation.

Generalizing (aka, "going where angels fear to tread"), my initial thoughts are that the answer would be similar if the bylaws allow proxy votes and one person had one or more proxies. But not weighted votes.

Edited September 12, 2020 at 07:01 PM by Atul Kapur

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Hmm, this is getting interesting.  I tend to concur with Mr. Lages based on the language used in RONR. Unless the bylaws or some other superior rule provides otherwise, I think a motion would have to be seconded by a different MEMBER regardless of how many lots the person who made The motion light own. 

RONR provides, however, that one of the distinguishing characteristics of a deliberative assembly is that "In any decision made, the opinion of each member present has equal weight as expressed by vote." RONR further provides that "The rules in this book are principally applicable to meeting bodies possessing all of the foregoing characteristics. Certain of these parliamentary rules or customs may sometimes also find application in other gatherings which, although resembling the deliberative assembly in varying degrees, do not have all of its attributes as listed above." RONR (12th ed.) 1:1-2

So it seems to me that RONR itself tells us that if an organization deviates in some respects from the distinguishing characteristics of a deliberative assembly as discussed in RONR (12th ed.) 1:1, the remaining rules in the book cannot necessarily be taken at face value. While it is correct that RONR provides that a motion is seconded by a different member, the rules on this subject are written based upon the assumption that each member is one person with one vote. It is not necessarily clear that these rules are also applicable in situations where a person has multiple votes.

In addition to this, even if one insists that the motion must be seconded by a different member, I think there may very well be the possibility that the person is, in fact, two or more members. In RONR "membership is individual, personal, and nontransferable." RONR (12th ed.) 45:70. I am not certain, however, that this is the case in this organization. At the very least, membership is transferable, as membership could be transferred by selling the property (additionally, proxy votes are often permitted in such organizations). It may well also be that membership is not individual, as it is often the case in associations of this type that a membership can be shared by multiple persons. Finally, it is not clear that membership is personal. It may be that is actually the lot which is a member, rather than the owner of the lots.

I think it is also important, in interpreting the rules relating to a second and how they may apply in different circumstances, to keep in mind what RONR says regarding the requirement of a second and its purpose. "The requirement of a second is for the chair’s guidance whether to state the question on the motion, thus placing it before the assembly. Its purpose is to prevent time from being consumed by the assembly’s having to dispose of a motion that only one person wants to see introduced." RONR (12th ed.) 4:12

It seems to me that implicit in this discussion is an assumption that "the opinion of each member present has equal weight as expressed by vote." In such a case, if only one member wants to see a motion considered, this is indeed likely a waste of the assembly's time as the motion has no chance of adoption.

In an assembly where members' opinions do not have equal weight as expressed by vote, however, it is not necessarily the case that a motion which only one member wishes to see considered has no chance of adoption. For a particularly extreme example, it is even conceivable that a single person could hold a majority (or more) of the votes. In such a case, it seems clearly ludicrous to suggest that some other person must second the motion in order "to prevent time from being consumed by the assembly’s having to dispose of a motion that only one person wants to see introduced."

Edited September 12, 2020 at 07:37 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

9 hours ago, Gustavo Lobo said:

Under the one lot owner one vote, can a lot owner who owns two or more lots, make a motion and seconded his/her own motion as he owns more than one lot?  thank you

Is that actually your rule?  One lot owner one vote?  A lot owner who owns two lots is not two lot owners.  He is still one owner.

If the rule was: One lot, one vote, the answer might be different.

[Osmigo]

This is an interesting topic, as it is extremely common for HOAs to allow one vote per lot owned, i.e. a person with 4 lots has 4 votes.  It can become contentious when the organization has bylaws stating that certain actions may be taken  "if approved by a majority of the members."  So, 18 out of 40 members wouldn't be a majority, but what if 1 of those 18 owns 4 lots?  If it does matter, how is this indicated in a typical "aye" or "nay" vote, e.g. do they hold up fingers indicating how many lots they own?  What if 2 of those 40 members owned 12 lots each?  Would they rule the subdivision with an iron fist?  The OP is yet another example.  Even though it's popular, this concept of "one vote per lot" can open a big can of worms.  

[Rob Elsman]

Any meeting at which participants will exercise any form of "weighted voting" are outside the scope of RONR (12th edition).  These kinds of meetings may use some forms of parliamentary procedure that are similar to the "deliberative assembly" described in the book, but they will inevitably have to adopt rules and customs that take into account the various special procedural circumstances that may arise.