Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Voting


Guest Irma

Recommended Posts

I am Board director of my Home Owners Assocation. Last night we met and voted on changing management companies. Can we vote on something that was not on the agenda we had a quorom with one person absent. I abstain my vote which led to a tie break by the president. After much thought I would like to vote on the matter. Can I do that?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am Board director of my Home Owners Assocation. Last night we met and voted on changing management companies. Can we vote on something that was not on the agenda we had a quorom with one person absent. I abstain my vote which led to a tie break by the president. After much thought I would like to vote on the matter. Can I do that?

Thanks

At a regular meeting, any item not requiring notice (e.g. amendments to the bylaws, elections) can be considered. At a special meeting, business is limited to that disclosed in the call for the meeting.

It's too late to change your vote. You could move to rescind the action of last night's meeting, although it could be too late for that, too, if a contract with the new company has been signed, etc.

The required vote to rescind/amend something previously adopted is 2/3 vote without notice, majority vote with notice, or a majority vote of the entire board.

-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am Board director of my Home Owners Assocation. Last night we met and voted on changing management companies. Can we vote on something that was not on the agenda we had a quorom with one person absent. I abstain my vote which led to a tie break by the president. After much thought I would like to vote on the matter. Can I do that?

Thanks

It would be interesting to know exactly what is meant by "...changing management companies." If the motion was, in fact, a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted that was adopted by a majority vote without previous notice having been validly given, then I would say that the motion was adopted invalidly and is null and void, RONR (10th ed.), p. 244.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to know exactly what is meant by "...changing management companies." If the motion was, in fact, a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted that was adopted by a majority vote without previous notice having been validly given, then I would say that the motion was adopted invalidly and is null and void, RONR (10th ed.), p. 244.

]See Official Interpretation 2006-1

-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am Board director of my Home Owners Assocation.

...

Can we vote on something that was not on the agenda we had a quorom with one person absent.

...

Two answers:

1. Under Robert's Rules of Order, there is no requirement that all items voted upon must have appears on some kind of agenda.

2. Home Owners Associations, in many states, have an extra requirement imposed upon them, namely, to have their business pre-announced to the home owners.

Thus, we can tell you with certainly what The Book says about agendas and voting.

But it is up to you to research your LEGAL requirements, and to double check if your state demands that your HOA mail or post the list of business items for the home owners to see ahead of meeting time what business shall be transacted, so that they may attend when their pet issue is to be voted on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow the link to 2006-18, not 2006-1.

Although one could say that 2006-1 should be read first. :-)

Thank you, Mr. Gerber. I agree with Mr. Fish that the authors' opinion in RONR, Off. Interp. 2006-18 at the Robert's Rules of Order website, www.robertsrules.com, is correctly raised in response to my previous reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh?

Am I the only one who doesn't see how '06-18 applies, not '17? And would it at least clarify that you're reversing yourself from yesterday (10:21 AM)?

Nancy N., I really cannot discuss this with you in a meaningful way unless you advance your arguments with something other than, "I lean toward 2006-17".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we vote on something that was not on the agenda

Sure, it's about time to outlaw agendas... or atleast the misunderstanding of them.

we had a quorom

Then, you can transact business.

I abstain my vote which led to a tie break by the president.

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know which way he voted. There seems to be a presumption on this thread that he cast his vote the only logical way that he could have. I leave open the possibility that he unnecessarily cast a meaningless vote to kill a motion that was already lost (which may be perfectly proper, if using the rules for small boards).

After much thought I would like to vote on the matter. Can I do that?

Well, you need a pending motion for that. This motion has passed you by. You would have to make a new motion. Depending on the particualr circumstances, that could simply require introducing the same motion again at another session, or it could call for a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nancy N., I really cannot discuss this with you in a meaningful way unless you advance your arguments with something other than, "I lean toward 2006-17".

Thank you. First, to clarify, I got 'em backwards in writing "how '06-18 applies, not '17?" I meant OI 2006-17, which seemed to apply, hands-down.

Rob, I thought, and still think, that that was your position in your first post on this thread. In fact, I think I remember having gone through the important difference between 2006-17 and -18 before myself, and having nailed it down, but obviously I've lost track of it by now.

I didn't pay attention to 2006-18 because I was misled -- at least in part -- by its including, as a factor, previous notice. So if I do understand this correctly, previous notice is not really a factor, and I wish they will amend 2006-18 to make this clear. -- And, possibly more importantly, amend it to show how and why, and when, it deals with matters much like those in 2006-17 in a markedly different way.

If, again, I understand this correctly, the essential difference between OI 20006-17 and -18 is that they deal with, um, attacks (not the best word) on an established rule in fundamentally different ways. 2006-17 is about a flagrant flouting of an unsuspendable rule (p. 257, ll. 8 - 10). This simply cannot be done validly, except by what "can be clearly established" to be enough to have changed the rule ... as it leaves the rule intact.

In contrast, OI 2006-18 deals with a direct assault on the body of the rule in question. (Heavens, such language, I might be close to invoking the famous crocodiles too.) It is simply a procedural process, in which the usual principles and rules about raising a point of order about a vote in a timely manner apply.

I will say, having also now spent a few follow-up minutes reading and contemplating the first coupla clauses of p. 244 (B) (ll. 12 - 13), that all this hinges on the necessity that the reader of OI 2006-17, -18, and p. 244 (B) recognizes that the reason the amendment of the rule is valid is the fact that, upon the adoption of that amendment, the previous wording is NO LONGER in force, so there is no ongoing conflict. But that, in turn, depends on the legitimate standing of that amendment, which we recognize was clearly adopted faultily. This is too close for comfort to a chicken-and-the-egg question, unsatisfactory for sane people, which may be why 3/4 of the Authorship Team of RONR is lawyers instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. First, to clarify, I got 'em backwards in writing "how '06-18 applies, not '17?" I meant OI 2006-17, which seemed to apply, hands-down.

Rob, I thought, and still think, that that was your position in your first post on this thread. In fact, I think I remember having gone through the important difference between 2006-17 and -18 before myself, and having nailed it down, but obviously I've lost track of it by now.

I didn't pay attention to 2006-18 because I was misled -- at least in part -- by its including, as a factor, previous notice. So if I do understand this correctly, previous notice is not really a factor, and I wish they will amend 2006-18 to make this clear. -- And, possibly more importantly, amend it to show how and why, and when, it deals with matters much like those in 2006-17 in a markedly different way.

If, again, I understand this correctly, the essential difference between OI 20006-17 and -18 is that they deal with, um, attacks (not the best word) on an established rule in fundamentally different ways. 2006-17 is about a flagrant flouting of an unsuspendable rule (p. 257, ll. 8 - 10). This simply cannot be done validly, except by what "can be clearly established" to be enough to have changed the rule ... as it leaves the rule intact.

In contrast, OI 2006-18 deals with a direct assault on the body of the rule in question. (Heavens, such language, I might be close to invoking the famous crocodiles too.) It is simply a procedural process, in which the usual principles and rules about raising a point of order about a vote in a timely manner apply.

I will say, having also now spent a few follow-up minutes reading and contemplating the first coupla clauses of p. 244 (cool.gif (ll. 12 - 13), that all this hinges on the necessity that the reader of OI 2006-17, -18, and p. 244 (cool.gif recognizes that the reason the amendment of the rule is valid is the fact that, upon the adoption of that amendment, the previous wording is NO LONGER in force, so there is no ongoing conflict. But that, in turn, depends on the legitimate standing of that amendment, which we recognize was clearly adopted faultily. This is too close for comfort to a chicken-and-the-egg question, unsatisfactory for sane people, which may be why 3/4 of the Authorship Team of RONR is lawyers instead.

Thank you, Nancy N. for the additional argumentation. I appreciate it.

It is crucial for the correct understanding of RONR, Off. Interp. 2006-17 to note that "The motion previously adopted created a rule (or "policy") which has its application outside of a meeting context. Such a rule cannot be suspended (RONR, 10th ed., p. 257, l. 8-10)." The conclusions drawn in the reply of that interpretation depend on this fact. In this post, the change of a management company does not seem to me to be a change in an unsuspendable rule that has its context outside of a meeting. For this reason, what is concluded in RONR, Off. Interp. 2006-17, does not seem to me to apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Nancy N. for the additional argumentation. I appreciate it.

It is crucial for the correct understanding of RONR, Off. Interp. 2006-17 to note that "The motion previously adopted created a rule (or "policy") which has its application outside of a meeting context. Such a rule cannot be suspended (RONR, 10th ed., p. 257, l. 8-10)." The conclusions drawn in the reply of that interpretation depend on this fact. In this post, the change of a management company does not seem to me to be a change in an unsuspendable rule that has its context outside of a meeting. For this reason, what is concluded in RONR, Off. Interp. 2006-17, does not seem to me to apply.

I thought the difference between OI 2006-17 and OI 2006-18 was whether the motion was properly made as a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, based on the rule of RONR, 10th ed., pg. 106, lines 28-31.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the difference between OI 2006-17 and OI 2006-18 was whether the motion was properly made as a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, based on the rule of RONR, 10th ed., pg. 106, lines 28-31.

Josh, I don't think so, if you're saying that form will dictate content and results. For example, if the motion in OI 2006-18 were phrased as, "I move that our single-contribution per annum limit be a thousand dollars," it would be just as valid, and completely beyond challenge, although the motion would certainly have been clearer if it had mentioned the previous limit and if it said explicitly that it was a proposal to amend the limit. (Some authority figure said something like this a few years ago, it might have been Mr Honemann or maybe President Eisenhower, and they probably didn't think to mention crocodiles.)

And I agree with Nancy and Rob, although I have a worry now in the back of my mind that I'll probably be able to formulate into English words (or possibly only American, though I might wind up settling for my usual Brooklynese) in a few hours or so ... probably by February, tops, being a slow and ponderous thinker (that is, me, not February. Calling February a slow and ponderous thinker is just silly. Especially since it's over so quickly. Hmm, ever notice that the names of three months of the year -- April, May, and June -- are unremarkable women's names, but the other nine would look odd? ... Hmm, perhaps I digress. I bet George thinks so).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...