false quailification

[Timberwolf]

A member of the board was found to have falsely been elected. Our by-laws and deed restrictions clearly state that membership is defined as one lot one member. If more then one common owner then it is still one member. One lot, one vote and one member. Yet they ( the two common owners) are both on the board. Objections have been strongly made and we are refering the matter to legal counsel. How would this effect the action that the board has done(voting on motion) while the board was in violation. Is there anything in Roberts rule? I strongly feel that "all" actions should be regarded as "null and void"

[hmtcastle]

I strongly feel that "all" actions should be regarded as "null and void"

Well, at best I think you could only challenge those actions where the one vote of the illegitimate board member could have made a difference.

But you might be getting ahead of yourself. Make sure you're not confusing membership in the association ("one lot, one vote") with membership on the board.

A little less feeling and a little more thinking might help.

[George Mervosh]

and we are refering the matter to legal counsel.

Wise move, since there's almost nothing we can do for you here.

[Josh Martin]

How would this effect the action that the board has done(voting on motion) while the board was in violation. Is there anything in Roberts rule? I strongly feel that "all" actions should be regarded as "null and void"

At most, the votes where one vote would make a difference would be null and void. But nothing in RONR requires that board members be members of the association, so there isn't a problem under RONR. Beyond that, this is an issue of Bylaws interpretation the society will decide for itself. (RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573) If there are applicable laws involved as well, that's what the lawyer is for.

[Guest wil]

Each position on the board is to be filled by a member in good standing. Since each lot counted as a single "member" and having one vote and only one vote. Then two member from one lot having two votes would violate the membership article of the by-laws and deed restriction. Otherwise there could be as many common owners as needed to fill the board from one lot. Thank you all. This matter is being looked into by an attorney. Just thought there might be something in the rules. P.S. new site looks great!

[Kim Goldsworthy]

A member of the board was found to have falsely been elected.

This remains to be seen.

Our by-laws and deed restrictions clearly state that membership is defined as one lot one member.

If more then one common owner then it is still one member.

One lot, one vote and one member.

I think you'll find that the "One lot = One member" equation is only applicable to membership IN THE ORGANIZATION.

• For membership on a committee, this will not apply.

• For membership on a board, this will not apply.

For any subgroup other than at the organization-membership level, this will not apply.

Yet they (the two common owners) are both on the board.

Unless your bylaws were written, or were amended, with unusual wording, I would agree with that statement (viz., that both owners can sit on a board or a committee).

Objections have been strongly made and we are refering the matter to legal counsel.

Okay.

But I am sure all you needed to do was to read your own bylaws, and see the composition of the board defined.

How would this effect the action that the board has done (voting on motion) while the board was in violation.

I think you will find that the applicable rule for boards and committees will be "One man, one vote."

Is there anything in Roberts rule?

Yes, there is.

The rule is, "One man, one vote."

This "lot" business is NOT any part of Robert's Rules.

I strongly feel that "all" actions should be regarded as "null and void".

Okay.

While this end result is possible, your description runs counter to every arrangement I've run across.

And I doubt that your HOA is the exception to the rule.

Nonetheless, IT IS POSSIBLE that you are correct; namely, that your rules do specify that boards and committees cannot contain more than one lot-owner.

If this turns out to be the case, the Good News is that NOT EVERY VOTE will automatically be null and void. - Only the votes where a single vote's difference was the factor in adoption.

But, I am laying odds that it won't come to that.

[Josh Martin]

Unless your bylaws were written, or were amended, with unusual wording, I would agree with that statement (viz., that both owners can sit on a board or a committee).

Well, Mr. Goldsworthy, since only a "member" of the organization may hold a position on the board, and one "member" may be multiple people in this organization, it seems that complicates things a bit (the "unusual wording" you mentioned).

As you note, this violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, so RONR and this forum will be of little help in solving this situation.