"Indefinite Postponement" of an Agenda Item?

Started by CarolR11 • 16 replies • 1619 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

CarolR11 (Colorado)
Posts: 2,563

Posted:

I finally bought RONR (11th ed.) because someone who's back on the board after a two-year hiatus, "Rod," refers to it a lot and I've already found that he doesn't remember it (as with many things nowadays) correctly. So, I have read through it and also RONR In Brief (11th ed.), which I also just purchased. I'm learning a lot, but still have a ways to go.

Last night in executive session, a director, Mary, whose agenda item was in our board packets when we received them a week ago, started to present her item, which was her request that the Board direct another director, Stan, to cease his constant personal attacks against Mary. Rod and Stan are buddies. Rod, noted that we were running out of time--our open meeting would convene in 3-4 minutes. Mary agreed to postpone her item till next month. Then Rod suddenly stated that no, we'd postpone her item "indefinitely." I'd never heard of such a thing and, frankly, didn't know what to say and Mary didn't either. I can't even really say how we ended the meeting!

Is an indefinite postponement of an agenda item in Robert's Rules? I'll try to find it tomorrow, but know that a couple of you are well versed in these matters. Thank you!

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

Per Roberts Rules Online:

34. To Postpone Indefinitely takes precedence of nothing except the main motion to which it is applied, and yields to all privileged [14], incidental [13], and other subsidiary [12] motions. It cannot be amended or have any other subsidiary motion applied to it except the previous question and motions limiting or extending the limits of debate. It is debatable and opens the main question to debate. It can be applied to nothing but main questions, which include questions of privilege and orders of the day after they are before the assembly for consideration. An affirmative vote on it may be reconsidered, but not a negative vote. If lost it cannot be renewed. It is simply a motion to reject the main question. If a main motion is referred to a committee while to postpone indefinitely is pending, the latter motion is ignored and does not go to the committee.

The Object of this motion is not to postpone, but to reject, the main motion without incurring the risk of a direct vote on it, and it is made only by the enemies of the main motion when they are in doubt as to their being in the majority.

The Effect of making this motion is to enable members who have exhausted their right of debate on the main question, to speak again, as technically, the question before the assembly is different, while, as far as the subject of discussion is concerned, there is no difference caused by changing the question from adopting to rejecting the measure, because the merits of the main question are open to debate in either case. If adopted, its effect is to suppress the main motion for that session, unless the vote is reconsidered. As this motion does not suppress the debate on the main question, its only useful effect is to give the opponents of the pending measure a chance of killing the main motion without risking its adoption in case of failure. For, if they carry the indefinite postponement, the main question is suppressed for the session; if they fail, they still have a vote on the main question, and, having learned their strength by the vote taken, they can form an opinion of the advisability of continuing the struggle.

LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099

Posted:

Tim & Carol:

I am a college graduate (BSBA), have an IQ of about 132, written language skills that have scored in the 99th percentile, and I have written at least one short essay that is now included in a college textbook.

Even with my stellar brilliance, I got totally lost reading the passage Tim quoted. It is beyond my comprehension. So, Carol, good luck with dealing with "Rod" and his Robert's Rules.

BTW, the underlying issue is the conduct of one board member towards another. While Stan may not play well with the other children, Mary is equally out of line thinking that Stan is going to change his behavior if the board passes a motion. Dealing with people you don't like comes with a seat on the board. Mary needs to deal with Stan in her own way; this is not a board issue.

CarolR11 (Colorado)
Posts: 2,563

Posted:

Thanks much, Tim. I agree with Larry that it's hard to follow, but I think that "Rod's" suggestion to "postpone indefinitely" wasn't proper. My reasoning is that "Mary's" agenda item wasn't a pending motion. I've read some, but not all of RONR's remarks on this topic, so I may be missing something. She had just begun her remarks. I've read some, but not all of RONR's remarks on this topic, so I may be missing something.

Because Rod is now such a pain re: Robert's Rules, Mary also referred to it and other sources in her agenda request. Davis-stirling.com, Censure, points out, “Unacceptable conduct worthy of censure may include personal attacks against fellow directors . . . “ Robert’s Rules, 11th ed., p. 43: Directors should never “attack or make any allusion to the motives of members.” On p. 392, directors, “must avoid personalities, and under no circumstances, can he attack or question the motives of another member. The measure, not the member, is the subject of debate.” Our own Code of Ethics: “Put personal issues aside,” and “Maintain a professional demeanor.”

Mary has been very patient regarding "Stan's" personal attacks against he--sometimes during open meetings. I've called "point of order!" a couple of times. Now, during the open meeting that followed the unfinished executive session, Stan, did not attack Mary. I'm thinking that her agenda item in and of itself may have disciplined Stan or embarrassed him. I hope so!

BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535

Posted:

The motion to postpone indefinitely was out of order. Both a motion to postpone indefinitely and the motion to postpone to a certain time (or place, or date or meeting) are covered extensively in Roberts Rules.

The motion to postpone to a certain time "takes precedence over the main motion; over the subsidiary motions to Postpone Indefinitely, ..." (RONR 11th ed., p 180).

In other words, the subsidiary motion to postpone indefinitely can be superseded by the subsidiary motion to postpone to a certain time. This means that if a motion to postpone indefinitely is made, a motion to postpone to a certain time is in order and takes precedence. The motion to postpone indefinitely can only be applied to a main motion. Thus, if a motion to postpone to a certain time is presently on the floor, the motion to postpone indefinitely is out of order because there is no main motion on the floor to apply it to and the motion to postpone to a certain time has precedence.

Once the motion to postpone to a certain time has been voted on, the motion to postpone indefinitely may or may not be in order. If the motion to postpone to a certain times succeeds, then the main motion is disposed of until it is taken up again at the later time, so there is no main motion on the floor for the motion to postpone indefinitely to apply to. On the other hand, if the motion to postpone to a certain time fails, then the main motion is still on the floor and is pending so a motion to postpone indefinitely would be in order.

Still a bit complicated, but hopefully, the above explanation is more understandable.

It's difficult to argue with a person who believes he understands Roberts Rules but really doesn't but who can convince others he does. You really have to be better and be able to prove your point by referring to the book. That takes years of experience.

BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535

Posted:

Carol,

The fault really lies with your president. If he understood Robert's Rules, he should have ruled the motion to postpone indefinitely out of order.

CarolR11 (Colorado)
Posts: 2,563

Posted:

Thanks for your careful response, Bruce! I do think I grasp what you wrote. In the Index to Robert's, there are lots of entries for indefinite postponement and to tell the truth, I haven't read all of them yet. But Tim's cite and your explanation do mesh with my understanding so far.

We've been quite relaxed about our use of RONR and even when "Rod" was on the Board previously, he rarely referred to it. But now he does and along with his memory of it, his memory of other HOA issues, our bylaws, CA Civil Code, etc., seems to be pretty well shot. It's like he's clinging to Robert's because he has nothing else to go on. He has the book at the meetings, but didn't refer to it in the case under discussion. I think the phrase just jumped into his mind.

We do not term our agenda items "motions," and they are prepared and given to us about a week before every monthly meeting. We just call them "items" and reports from committees often include "recommendations," but the motions themselves are made at the meetings. Must we term the agenda times & recommendations "motions"? I really hate to get that fussy concerning any parts of Robert's.

We do follow the proper voting procedures at meetings and have referred to Robert's a couple of times to reconsider decisions previously made. In fact this also came into play last week concerning a decision that infuriated the homeowners who attended, who gave the Board an earful at our second Open Forum. This brings up another question, which I have not looked into yet. This item concerned reimbursing the former chair of a committee, who'd purchased items within the budget that the committee had per its charter. The former chair had exceeded a particular line item, but not his budget. It was moved and seconded that he be reimbursed. One director had to recuse himself as spouse of the former chair. The result was a 3-3 tie so the motion failed. My question is that Rod demanded the vote be by secret ballot! Was that proper??

Our president knows nothing about RONR and defers to Rod's "expertise." Rod is the VP.

BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CarolR11 on 03/01/2013 10:55 AM
My question is that Rod demanded the vote be by secret ballot! Was that proper??

Our president knows nothing about RONR and defers to Rod's "expertise."

With regard to the secret ballot question:

"In cases in which there is no requirement that a vote be by ballot, a ballot vote can be ordered by a majority vote" (RONR, 11th ed., p412). In other words, Rod cannot demand that the vote be by secret ballot, but he can make the motion that the vote be by secret ballot. If the majority of the assembly agrees, then the vote is done by secret ballot; otherwise, no.

With regards to a deliberative assembly, no one person has a right to control the assembly. In most instances, it is the will of the majority, or in some cases, the will of 2/3 of the assembly.

It's too bad that your President has to rely on the expertise of a self-proclaimed "expert." I've run into that before.

On the other hand 40 years of experience (mine) is helpful, but I do not consider myself an expert, even though I was invited by the secretary of a well-known organization of professional parliamentarians to become a member.

If you're really serious about learning more about parliamentary procedure and, in particular, Roberts Rules, I suggest you visit the official Roberts Rules website. They also have a Q&A forum where you can ask questions. Often, the answers are provided by professional parliamentarians, sometimes even by one of the authors of Roberts Rules who happens to be the site moderator. That's where I go when I have questions.

Try: http://www.robertsrules.com/interpretations.html

CarolR11 (Colorado)
Posts: 2,563

Posted:

Thank you again for your help, Bruce. I will learn more about Robert's Rules and visit the site that you advised. I already have learned a few useful things.

Btw, when homeowners were insistent about the Board reconsidering a motion previously decided--to not approve the landscape reimbursement. The motion was made, seconded and passed to reconsider. A motion was made and seconded to reimburse. At that point, Rod stood up, said he was abstaining and leaving--he slunk out of the room. Stan, also stood, said he was abstaining and leaving, and skulked off. The motion passed 4 ayes, voice vote this time, and 3 abstentions. Homeowners applauded.

BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CarolR11 on 03/01/2013 7:22 PM
Thank you again for your help, Bruce. I will learn more about Robert's Rules and visit the site that you advised. I already have learned a few useful things.

Btw, when homeowners were insistent about the Board reconsidering a motion previously decided--to not approve the landscape reimbursement. The motion was made, seconded and passed to reconsider. A motion was made and seconded to reimburse. At that point, Rod stood up, said he was abstaining and leaving--he slunk out of the room. Stan, also stood, said he was abstaining and leaving, and skulked off. The motion passed 4 ayes, voice vote this time, and 3 abstentions. Homeowners applauded.

Interesting story, and I'm happy people were satisfied, but was the motion to reconsider proper?

If a motion is decided in a meeting, it cannot be reconsidered during the same meeting unless the motion for reconsideration is made by the prevailing side. In other words, if the motion is to approve landscape reimbursement, and the motion is approved, only a person who voted for approval can move that the motion be reconsidered during the same meeting. If the motion for landscaping reimbursement fails, then only a person who voted "no" can move that the motion be reconsidered during the same meeting. Otherwise, the motion can only be reconsidered during a future meeting. (RONR, 11th ed, pp 315-17). If the motion was improper (out of order) and Rod didn't catch it, he's slipping. Instead of abstaining he should have raised a point of order. His loss, your gain.

At a future meeting:

1. The proper motion is to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted;
2. Requires a majority vote with notice (motion is placed on the agenda and circulated to members prior to the meeting);
3. Require a 2/3 vote without notice (introduced during the future meeting).
(RONR, 11th ed., pp 305-309)

BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535

Posted:

Carol,

As a footnote, the irony here is that if Rod was against reimbursement and was on the prevailing side when the original motion was defeated, he missed his opportunity to have the motion to reconsider stopped dead in its tracks by failing to note that the motion to reconsider was a violation of Roberts Rules.

CarolR11 (Colorado)
Posts: 2,563

Posted:

Well, Bruce, the whole evening was ironic. Rod believed that he would be able to help his friend "Stan," when Rod began serving again. But the combo of the two of them is horrible.

Anyhoo, I think the obvious anger of the membership caught Rod off guard. To reconsider, the motion and second came from 2 directors who had not made the original motion and second so all we know is that, given the 6 who could vote, at least one of them had been on the prevailing no-vote side of the 3-3 tie from secret balloting. But also because of the secret ballot, I don't know if even the director who seconded the motion in the first vote actually voted to reimburse!

By the time that Rod slouched his way to the meeting room door to leave after he abstained, he looked like a beaten man. My hope is that a couple of things that happened the other night will encourage Rod and Stan to be more civil and less high & mighty at our next meeting.

Btw, Bruce, one thing that I've learned from Robert's is that at meetings, directors shouldn't read to other directors from sources that we're not all looking at. Stan & Rod have been doing this over the past few meetings as a type of blindside. The rest of us cannot see what they're reading and already they have misquoted some of their materials--which mainly seem to be some sort of evidence of their point of view.

So I'm placing this on next month's agenda to see if the Board'll decide that we may not introduce such materials without having copies ourselves--preferable in advance of the meetings.

Bruce, have I interpreted Robert's properly on this?

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

I was on the BOD of a fraternal/business organization. We had one fellow that was considered the expert on our Covenants and Bylaws. He often used and quoted them and mainly to his advantage or to bully the BOD. I spent time reading and becoming familiar with them. It some became clear that my interpertations were not what his were.

I laid in wait for an issue to come up. Well one did. I challenged his interpertation and quoted chapter and verse. It went to our lawyer. Lawyer came back and said I was right. Same thing happened a few months later. Same result.

He soon stopped trying to bully the BOD and we worked quite well together from then on.

Often all one needs to stop a verbal bully, is more knowledge then they have.

CarolR11 (Colorado)
Posts: 2,563

Posted:

You're right, John46. While Rod used to have a satisfactory grasp of our bylaws, he was weaker on our fabulous Davis-Stirling legislation. I wrote "fabulous" just for you, John :-)

Before his retirement, Rod had been a bureaucrat in a very large public school system (L.A.), which is when he learned Robert's. Before his 2-year break, he cited them properly--I guess. He does exactly as you say, warp their meanings. But now he doesn't know them well and has forgotten our bylaws and D-S. During the 2 years he was off the board, I became even more familiar with D-S & our bylaws. And recently first "Mary" and now I are learning Robert's to get him on a more productive path.

At present, He's causing dissension on our board by emboldening "Stan," and now anger among homeowners. It's gettin' real ugly around here and must stop for the benefit of our HOA.

BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535

Posted:

Well, Carol, it would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall, as they say. I'm not sure how one can tell who was on the prevailing side when the voting was by secret ballot. One question that comes to mind is why was the vote by secret ballot in the first place? This is not the type of issue that requires a secret ballot. You mentioned in an earlier post the Rod had demanded a secret ballot. Was that demand made in reference to this issue? As I said in response to that post, no member can demand a secret ballot. A member can move that the vote be by secret ballot and it's then up to the assembly to decide. If a majority of the members want a secret ballot, then that's how it is done. Otherwise, no.

Just one point on the second to a motion. A second should not be interpreted to imply that the person seconding a motion is in favor of it. It simply means that the person seconding the motion believes the motion is worthy of consideration and debate. People have been known to second a motion when they intend to vote against the motion and believe it will be defeated anyway. They merely want it to go on record that the motion was defeated by a majority of the assembly.

I see no reason why one cannot introduce a motion that would require that any materials that are intended to be introduced during a meeting be made available to all members in advance. If that's what the majority wishes to do, then that's what should be done. As I have said repeatedly, it's what the majority wants, not what one or two individuals want. Not only is there a danger of a person misquoting material or twisting interpretations, but quoting material out of context, which is more common, is equally deceptive.

Most items on a meeting agenda are not such emergencies that they cannot be postponed and discussed at a later meeting. If someone introduced material that I didn't have that I feel I needed to examine more closely before deciding how to vote, I would simply move that further debate on the motion be postponed to the next meeting and that copies of the material(s) in question be distributed to all members so that all members would have an opportunity to review them prior to the next meeting. And remember, a motion to postpone to a future meeting has precedence over a motion to postpone indefinitely. A motion to postpone requires a second, is debatable, and only requires a majority vote.

By the way, you will find a quick guide to all these motions in the "big book" (RONR) on the pages with the gray edges toward the back. Here you will find their order of precedence and an A-Z list of motions.

CarolR11 (Colorado)
Posts: 2,563

Posted:

Thank you again, Bruce. I did learn from RONR, 11th ed., that there should have been a vote to proceed with the secret ballot. It was obvious to everyone in attendance that Rod only wanted a secret ballot because he & Stan were too embarrassed by their refusal to reimburse to want to do it publicly.

Indeed, after the first vote to approve reimbursement failed, the former committee chair and two other Owners stormed out of the meeting room. On her way out, one woman, who's respected in our HOA, sharply declared to the Board, "You should be ashamed, you're an embarrassment!!"

Yes, Rod's "summarizing" a point from Robert's usually is a context problem.

Thanks, too, for your suggestion about postponing to the next meeting items when Rod or Stan spring additional materials on the rest of us. It's very obvious that they want to catch those of us who actually prepare for meetings off guard. As with Rod's use of Robert's, these additional materials often are taken out of context or even are irrelevant.

BonnieG1 (Nebraska)
Posts: 1,186

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By LarryB13 on 02/27/2013 11:45 PM
Tim & Carol:

I am a college graduate (BSBA), have an IQ of about 132, written language skills that have scored in the 99th percentile, and I have written at least one short essay that is now included in a college textbook.

Even with my stellar brilliance, I got totally lost reading the passage Tim quoted. It is beyond my comprehension. So, Carol, good luck with dealing with "Rod" and his Robert's Rules.

BTW, the underlying issue is the conduct of one board member towards another. While Stan may not play well with the other children, Mary is equally out of line thinking that Stan is going to change his behavior if the board passes a motion. Dealing with people you don't like comes with a seat on the board. Mary needs to deal with Stan in her own way; this is not a board issue.

Thanks,
I was beginning to feel quite stupid as I too was having a difficult time understanding the post and I Have a masters degree. My IQ is not as high as yours nor are my written langauge skills as good as yours.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here