Whisperwood Home Owner’s Association
Minutes of the Whisperwood HOA Board Meeting
Date: November 1, 2024
Location: Groves Branch Library
Time: Meeting called to order at 6:02 pm
Attendees
Board Members Present:
• Randal Hamilton, President
• Robert Guerrero, Vice President
• Rehj Hoeffner, Secretary/Treasurer
• Priscilla Elliott, Member at Large
• Marnee Bolen, Member at Large
Association Members:
Several members of the association were present in the audience.
Meeting Proceedings
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Randal Hamilton at 6:02 pm, with a quorum of board
members confirmed.
Governance and Agenda Protocol
Randal Hamilton discussed the governance of the new board and the process for getting items
on the agenda.
OLD BUSINESS
Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes
• Rehj Hoeffner mentioned corrections made to the previous minutes and moved to accept
them as amended.
• Robert Guerrero seconded the motion.
• The motion carried unanimously.
Action Item: Marnee Bolen inquired about additional changes to previous minutes. Rehj
Hoeffner assured her the corrections were made but noted the webpage revision had
inadvertently not been made permanent. Rehj Hoeffner agreed to ensure that this revision is
updated on the website.
Note: Before these minutes were published, the pending website revisions were completed,
ensuring all corrections are reflected both in the official minutes and on the association’s
webpage.
NEW BUSINESS
Treasurer’s Report
Rehj Hoeffner provided the Treasurer’s report and requested a motion to pay outstanding bills
and honor existing contracts entered into by the previous, now-recognized invalid board.
• Marnee Bolen moved to accept responsibility for fulfilling previous contracts to ensure
continuity of obligations.
• Priscilla Elliott seconded the motion.
• The motion carried unanimously.
Dual Signatures on Checks
Presidential Directive (Not on Agenda): Randal Hamilton commented that, moving forward,
all checks will require two signatures to ensure accountability.
Appreciation for Pool Volunteers
Discussion took place regarding recognition for pool volunteers with a gift card.
• Marnee Bolen suggested a proclamation and an amount equal to the 2025 staffing
budget allocation ($30,000) split evenly for volunteer appreciation.
• Priscilla Elliott moved to give $50 gift cards to the volunteers.
• Robert Guerrero seconded the motion.
• The motion carried with four votes; Marnee Bolen voiced abstention.
Action Item: Randal Hamilton requested a letter of appreciation to accompany the gift cards.
• Robert Guerrero moved to have a letter of appreciation written and presented with gift
cards for $50 to the pool volunteers.
• There was a delay in receiving a second; Marnee Bolen eventually seconded the motion.
• The motion carried with three votes in favor; Priscilla Elliott and Rehj Hoeffner
abstained by default.
• Procedural Irregularities
❖ Seconding the Motion: The motion for a letter of appreciation was delayed in receiving
a second. The motion should have failed for lack of a natural second.
❖ Voting Procedure: During the vote on letters of appreciation and gift cards, the chair did
not call for opposition, which led some members to abstain by default. To ensure all
members have a chance to cast their vote, the chair should call explicitly for votes in
favor, against, and abstentions.
Additional Action Item: Marnee Bolen will provide the board with a list of 2024 pool
volunteers, with no deadline stated.
Pool Renovation Bids and Project Management
The board discussed the need to re-bid outdated pool renovation bids and considered appointing
a project manager to oversee specifications.
Pool Consultant:
Randal Hamilton shared that Chad Seay agreed to act as a project manager without charge, but
there was discussion about potential compensation.
• Marnee Bolen moved to appoint Chad Seay as the “point person” while seeking an
alternate project manager.
• Motion failed for lack of a second.
• Rehj Hoeffner then moved to appoint Chad Seay as the “pool consultant” to work
alongside Randal Hamilton and Robert Guerrero.
• Priscilla Elliott seconded the motion.
• The motion carried unanimously.
Pool Overseer:
▪ Marnee Bolen moved to have Chad Seay oversee the project with Robert Guerrero and
Randall Hamilton.
▪ Robert Guerrero seconded the motion.
▪ The motion carried unanimously.
▪ Chad Seay will serve as both to “oversee the pool project” and “pool consultant” with
Randal Hamilton and Robert Guerrero.
Action Item: The board will draft a policy outlining the specific duties and
responsibilities of the “pool consultant” and the Pool Renovation Project oversight team (Chad
Seay, Randal Hamilton, and Robert Guerrero). This policy should be prepared for review and
adoption at the next board meeting.
Additional Volunteer Support for Pool Project
Chad Seay suggested potential candidates for the project leadership role, including Santiago
Ramirez, who holds an engineering degree, and Tim Collins. Concerns were raised regarding
the personal liabilities associated with the position, and Santiago Ramirez indicated he did not
wish to be involved.
Rubber Cement Coating Presentation
A presentation was given on the use of rubber cement coating for the pool area. Following the
presentation, Rehj Hoeffner requested additional information on paver options and quotes.
Marnee Bolen stated that paver information and samples had been presented in a previous
meeting. However, Rehj Hoeffner, who attended that meeting, noted she only observed Cool
Deck examples, but had observed no paver examples.
Audience members began to comment vocally on a variety of subjects. Chad Seay intervened to
remind attendees that the Board is required to adhere to the agenda for an orderly discussion.
Proposed Work Session
Chad Seay suggested holding a “work session” before the next board meeting to allow members
the opportunity to voice grievances. The suggestion was discussed informally, but no vote was
taken.
2025 Proposed Budget
Randal Hamilton presented the proposed 2025 budget for a vote.
Public Review: The budget has been published on the website for two months, allowing board
members and home owner’s alike to review and submit questions or concerns.
Member Feedback: One question was received regarding the tools used to prepare the budget,
which included pencil, paper, computer, analytic skills, and previous board experience. Another
request to post the 2023 financials was received and complied with. Additionally, the 2022
financials were also posted. More years to be posted as time permits.
• Robert Guerrero moved to accept the proposed 2025 budget as published.
• Instead of a second, Marnee Bolen moved to table the 2025 budget for additional
information, stating discrepancies without giving specifics or asking questions.
• Marnee Bolen requested a second, and Robert Guerrero provided it following her
prompt.
• The motion carried with three votes for and two against.
• Reason: Further research and more information were needed.
• Revisit Date: No specific date was set to bring the 2025 Proposed Budget back from the
table.
• Condition for Resolution: No specific conditions were outlined for resolving the tabled
2025 Proposed Budget.
• Procedural Irregularities
❖ Premature Motion to Table: Marnee Bolen moved to table the budget immediately after
Robert Guerrero’s motion to accept it, without waiting for a second on the primary
motion.
❖ Tabling Without Specific Reason: Marnee Bolen moved to table the agenda item
without providing specific reasons for doing so and before any discussion or questions
were entertain. As no specific rationale beyond a generalized statement about needing
“additional information” or conducting “further research,” without providing specific
details or examples of what information was lacking. Moving to table even though the
policy in question had been posted on the website for over two months, during which no
questions or concerns were raised, is inappropriate. Other members did not have a clear
basis for agreeing or disagreeing with the motions. This lack of information limited
members’ ability to make informed votes and could contribute to a sense of coercion for
some and confusion for others, as they could feel pressured to support the motion without
understanding the purpose.
❖ Tabling Due to Lack of Preparation: Marnee Bolen moved to table items, citing the
need for additional information, despite the fact that relevant materials had been
available on the website for over two months without any prior questions or concerns
raised by her. Tabling items because of lack of preparation is generally inappropriate
and can delay necessary decisions.
❖ Inappropriate Tabling of Amendable Items: Marnee Bolen moved to table the proposed
budget, an item that could easily be amended through board discussion. Tabling
amendable items, such as budgets, is generally inappropriate, as these items are intended
to be adapted as needed based on input from board members.
❖ Soliciting a Second: Requesting another member to second any motion, rather than
allowing a natural second to occur is inappropriate. The motion should have failed for
lack of a second.
2025 Proposed Pool Policy
Randal Hamilton brought up mixed member feedback on pool staffing.
• Marnee Bolen moved to table the Proposed 2025 Pool Policy, but received no immediate
second.
• A second for her motion was requested, and Robert Guerrero provided it following a
prompt.
• The motion carried, with three votes in favor; Priscilla Elliott and Rehj Hoeffner
abstained by default.
• Reason: More information necessary and time to gather further details.
• Revisit Date: No specific date was set to bring the budget back from the table.
• Condition for Resolution: No specific conditions were outlined for resolving the tabled
budget.
• Procedural Irregularities
❖ Premature Motion to Table: Marnee Bolen moved to table the 2025 Pool Policy without
waiting for a second on the primary motion.
❖ Tabling Without Specific Reason: Marnee Bolen moved to table the agenda item
without providing specific reasons for doing so and before any discussion or questions
were entertain. As no specific rationale beyond a generalized statement about needing
“additional information” or conducting “further research,” without providing specific
details or examples of what information was lacking. Other members did not have a clear
basis for agreeing or disagreeing with the motions. This lack of information limited
members’ ability to make informed votes and could contribute to a sense of coercion for
some and confusion for others, as they could feel pressured to support the motion without
understanding the purpose.
❖ Soliciting a Second: Requesting another member to second any motion, rather than
allowing a natural second to occur is inappropriate. The motion should have failed for
lack of a second.
❖ Repeated Tabling: Marnee Bolen made multiple motions to table agenda items before
any discussion took place, which affected the progression of scheduled discussions.
Members who move to table an item are encouraged to provide specific and quantitative
reasons to support transparency and accountability.
❖ Voting Process: During the vote on the motion to table the 2025 Proposed Pool Policy,
the chair did not call for those opposed. Consequently, members who did not vote in
favor were not given a clear opportunity to voice opposition, which led some to abstain
by default.
Community Survey
Presidential Directive (Not on Agenda): Randal Hamilton suggested a community survey to
gather feedback on future policies for board consideration. No vote was taken, as the item was
not on the agenda.
Attorney Search
Discussion on the need to hire a new attorney due to the current attorney’s retirement.
Marnee Bolen and Robert Guerrero volunteered to seek out candidates for the board’s legal
counsel.
• Priscilla Elliott moved to approve their role in finding a new attorney
• Robert Guerrero seconded the motion.
• The motion carried unanimously.
Following this decision, Marnee Bolen requested permission to speak with the current attorney
to facilitate the transition process. However, as no vote was taken, formal authorization was not
granted for this action.
2025 Proposed Election Policy and Timeline
Randal Hamilton discussed the 2025 proposed election timeline and policy covering mail-in,
proxy, and in-person voting procedures, with nominations beginning on November 18.
Development: Board President Randal Hamilton assigned Rehj Hoeffner and Marnee Bolen
the joint responsibility of collaborating to develop a 2025 Proposed Election Policy, a task
essential for ensuring transparency and consistency in upcoming board elections. In accordance
with this assignment, Rehj Hoeffner promptly took the initiative to develop a working draft of
the policy. This draft was completed and submitted to Marnee Bolen on October 19, 2024,
specifically for her review, feedback, and collaboration, as was outlined in her role on this task.
Despite the ample time provided for review and the significance of the policy to the board’s
operational framework, Marnee Bolen did not submit any responses, questions, comments, or
suggested revisions in relation to this draft prior to the present meeting.
Correction: Marnee Bolen commented that ballots and proxies could not be requested on the
same day nominations ended (November 9th), indicating they should not be requested before
nominations close. However, it is permissible for members to request ballots and proxies before
the nomination period concludes and it’s perfectly fine for them to begin on the same day. There is
nothing that would preclude this from occurring simultaneously, as there is no bylaw or state law restriction
on this timing.
• Marnee Bolen moved to table the 2025 Proposed Election Policy, but the motion
received no immediate second.
• After repeated prompting, Robert Guerrero seconded the motion.
• The motion carried with three votes; Priscilla Elliott and Rehj Hoeffner abstained by
default.
• Reason: More information necessary and time to gather further details.
• Date to Revisit: No specific date set to take from the table.
• Condition for Resolution: No specific conditions were outlined for resolving the tabled
budget.
• Procedural Irregularities
❖ Premature Motion to Table: Marnee Bolen made a motion to table the 2025 Proposed
Election Policy prior to a main motion and second.
❖ Tabling Without Specific Reason: Marnee Bolen moved to table the agenda item
without providing specific reasons for doing so and before any discussion or questions
were entertain. As no specific rationale beyond a generalized statement about needing
“additional information” or conducting “further research,” without providing specific
details or examples of what information was lacking. Other members did not have a clear
basis for agreeing or disagreeing with the motions. This lack of information limited
members’ ability to make informed votes and could contribute to a sense of coercion for
some and confusion for others, as they could feel pressured to support the motion without
understanding the purpose.
❖ Tabling Due to Lack of Preparation: Marnee Bolen moved to table items, citing the
need for additional information, despite the fact that relevant materials had been
available on the website for over two months without any prior questions or concerns
raised by her. Tabling items because of lack of preparation is generally inappropriate
and can delay necessary decisions.
❖ Soliciting a Second: Marnee Bolen repeatedly prompted another member for a second
on her motion, rather than allowing a natural second to occur. The motion should have
failed for lack of a second.
❖ Repeated Tabling: Marnee Bolen made multiple motions to table agenda items,
impacting the progression of scheduled discussions. Tabling multiple items without
substantive discussion, leads to potential delays in necessary decision-making.
❖ Voting Process: During the vote for the motion to table the 2025 Proposed Election
Policy, the chair did not call for those opposed. As a result, members who did not vote in
favor were not formally given the opportunity to voice opposition, leading some to
abstain by default.
Tabling Impact on Election Calendar
Due to the tabling of the 2025 Proposed Election Policy, the election calendar will need to be
adjusted. This change compresses the timeline, allowing less time for members to submit
nominations, request ballots, and vote prior to Election Day, scheduled for January 13, 2025.
Revised Election Calendar
The election calendar has been adjusted to accommodate the necessary steps within a shortened
timeline:
• Nomination Period Begins: November 22, 2024
• Requests for Ballots/Proxies Begin: November 22, 2024 (perfectly appropriate)
• Nomination Period Ends: December 15, 2024
• Deadline to Request Ballots/Proxies: December 22, 2024
• Voting Deadline (Ballots/Proxies Received by): January 10, 2025
• Election Day for In-Person Voting: January 13, 2025
Compliance with Texas Property Code
Section 209.00593 of the Texas Property Code requires that HOAs provide notice to members
soliciting board candidates. This notice must include instructions for eligible candidates and
specify a deadline for submitting candidacy requests, which must not be earlier than 10 days
after the notice date. In this case, with a December 15, 2024, nomination end date, a start date of
November 22, 2024, remains compliant with the legal requirements.
Meeting Scheduled
The next meeting was initially set for November 14 but was rescheduled to November 12.
at Marnee Bolen’s request.
No change in venue was noted nor was any vote was taken.
The annual meeting and election of Board Members has been set for January 13. During this
meeting, a suggestion was made for board members to familiarize themselves with Robert’s
Rules of Order to support effective governance and procedural adherence.
Adjournment
• Robert Guerrero moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 pm.
• Marnee Bolen seconded the motion.
• The motion carried unanimously.
Minutes Submitted by:
Rehj Hoeffner, Secretary/Treasurer
Procedural Notes:
BRINGING AN ITEM TO THE FLOOR
Opening Motion and Second: To bring an item to the floor for discussion, a board member
must first make a primary motion related to the agenda item (e.g., “I move to approve the 2025
budget”). Another member must second the motion to indicate that at least one additional
member is interested in discussing it. Without a second, the motion fails and does not proceed
to discussion.
Chair Calls for Discussion: Once the motion is made and seconded, the chair opens the floor for
discussion. This gives board members an opportunity to share their views, ask questions, and
raise any concerns about the item. The chair should ensure that all members have a fair chance
to participate before any additional motions, such as a motion to table, are introduced.
Motion to Table or Postpone: Tabling or Postponing the item is only appropriate after the
initial motion has been made, seconded, and discussed. A motion to table can be made if
additional time or information is genuinely needed. This motion also requires a second and a
vote to pass. If a board member tries to table the item immediately upon introduction, the
chair should call a Point of Order, reminding the board that a main motion and discussion
should precede any tabling motion.
Example of Proper Sequence:
Member A: “I move to adopt the 2025 pool policy.”
Member B: “I second the motion.”
Chair: “The motion has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?”
Discussion proceeds.
After discussion, Member C might then move to table if needed, with a second and a vote.
Following these steps ensures that each item is properly introduced, discussed, and, if
necessary, tabled with transparency and respect for procedure.
SECONDING ITEMS
For future reference, it is noted that according to Robert’s Rules of Order, motions require an
immediate second to proceed. If a second is not provided promptly, the motion fails, and the
board should continue with the agenda without prompting for a second. There is no further
action necessary. The meeting just continues on.
Here’s the proper approach: Wait Briefly for a Second: After a motion is made, the president
should pause briefly to allow another member to second it. This brief pause gives members a
chance to support the motion without prompting.
No Second, No Action: If no one seconds the motion after a brief pause, the president should
immediately state, “The motion fails for lack of a second,” and move on to the next agenda
item.
Avoid Prompting for a Second: It’s not appropriate for the president or the person making the
motion to ask for a second, as doing so can create pressure on members to support a motion
they might not fully agree with.
Implement a Procedural Reminder: At the beginning of each meeting, remind board members
that motions require a quick and natural second without prompting. This will help reinforce
that seconds should come naturally if there is genuine support.
Consider a Governance Policy: Adopting a written policy that defines the meeting process—
including how motions, seconds, and votes are handled—can help prevent these issues. This
policy could outline that prodding for seconds should be avoided to uphold procedural
integrity.
Who can Second a Motion: Presidents often refrain from making or seconding motions to
maintain neutrality, especially if they are facilitating the meeting.
This approach keeps the meeting orderly and respects the board’s procedural integrity,
allowing only motions with sufficient support to proceed.
SOLICITING SECONDS
During the meeting, it was observed that a second for a motion was actively solicited rather
than occurring naturally. Under Robert’s Rules of Order, a second to a motion should be
voluntary, arising naturally to demonstrate genuine support. Actively requesting a second can
pressure members into supporting a motion they may not fully agree with, which compromises
the integrity of the voting process.
Guidance for Future Meetings: To uphold procedural standards, board members are
encouraged to allow seconds to arise voluntarily. If a motion does not receive a second without
prompting, it typically does not proceed, as a lack of support indicates it may not warrant
further discussion. Members are reminded that they may raise a Point of Order if they observe
solicitation of a second, to ensure adherence to Robert’s Rules and maintain the board’s
commitment to transparent and fair procedures.
TABLING ITEMS
Robert’s Rules of Order does allow for a motion to table an item, but it is intended to be used
sparingly and for specific purposes. Here’s a summary of Robert’s Rules on tabling multiple
votes or issues:
Purpose of Tabling: The motion to table, or “lay on the table,” is meant to temporarily set aside
an item because it cannot be dealt with at that moment, often due to the need for additional
information or an unexpected priority. It should not be used to avoid dealing with issues
indefinitely or as a stalling tactic. Members are encouraged to be prepared to act on agreed
agenda items by asking questions and gathering needed information prior to the meeting.
Being unprepared should not be a reason for “laying an item on the table”.
Avoiding Abuse of Tabling Motions: Repeatedly tabling multiple agenda items without clear
and specific reasons can be viewed as obstructive and is discouraged. Under Robert’s Rules, it
would generally be out of order to table multiple items as a means of delaying decisions
without a valid and specific reason given for each. Each member voting in favor of “laying on
the table” should be able to publicly state their reasons for doing so.
Handling Multiple Tabled Items: If several items are tabled, it is the responsibility of the board
to ensure that they are addressed promptly once the reason for tabling is resolved. To bring an
item back, a member would move to “take from the table,” which requires a majority vote.
Requirement for a Motion and a Second: Each motion to table must be proposed individually,
properly seconded, and voted on by the board. This process ensures that the decision to table is
intentional and agreed upon by the majority for a specific reason, which should be included in
the meeting minutes.
Accountability: When items are tabled, it’s good practice to record in the minutes the given
reason for tabling each item and to set a specific time or condition for bringing it back. This
prevents issues from being forgotten or perpetually delayed.
Implement a Procedural Reminder: At the beginning of each meeting, remind board members
that tabling items should be used sparingly and only with a specific purpose. This will help
reinforce that members should come to the meetings prepared and only table items for
genuine reasons.
Consider a Governance Policy: Adopting a written policy that defines the meeting process—
including how motions to lay items upon the table are handled—can help prevent these issues.
This policy could outline that multiple tables for identical reasons should be avoided to uphold
procedural integrity.
In summary, Robert’s Rules discourage using tabling motions as a blanket strategy to delay
multiple issues, or for members who come unprepared to discuss or vote on each item on the
published agenda. Each motion to table should have a specific, valid reason, and the board
should commit to addressing tabled items as soon as the stated reason for delay is resolved.
PREMATURE MOTION TO TABLE
It was noted that a premature motion to table was introduced during the meeting before the
primary motion had been formally made, seconded, and opened for discussion. According to
Robert’s Rules of Order, a motion to table should only be introduced after a main motion has
been properly presented and seconded, allowing for initial discussion on the item. This
procedural step ensures that all board members have an opportunity to consider the item
before any decision is deferred.
Recommendation for Procedural Adherence: To support orderly and efficient proceedings,
board members are encouraged to wait until a primary motion has been fully established and
discussion opened before proposing a motion to table. Moving forward, if a motion to table is
introduced prematurely, members should consider raising a Point of Order to maintain proper
meeting structure and ensure informed decision-making.
TABLING WITHOUT A SPECIFIC REASON
During the meeting, a motion to table certain agenda items was introduced without a clear and
specific rationale, citing only general terms such as “additional information needed” or “further
research.” According to Robert’s Rules of Order, tabling should be accompanied by a concrete
and compelling reason to allow board members to make informed decisions on whether
deferral is necessary. Tabling without a specific reason can hinder efficient board operations
and delay decision-making unnecessarily.
Guidance for Future Meetings: Board members are encouraged to provide a detailed rationale
when proposing a motion to table, specifying the exact information needed or reason for the
delay. This practice allows other members to understand the purpose of the deferral and
supports transparency and accountability. If a motion to table lacks specificity, members may
consider raising a Point of Order to ensure adherence to procedural standards and to maintain
the board’s focus on timely and effective governance.
TABLING DUE TO LACK OF PREPARATION
During the meeting, certain agenda items were tabled with a rationale of “needing additional
information” or “further research,” despite relevant materials being available well in advance.
According to Robert’s Rules of Order, tabling should be used sparingly and primarily in
situations where genuinely new or unexpected issues arise that prevent immediate decisionmaking. Using a motion to table due to lack of preparation undermines the efficiency of board
operations and deviates from the intended purpose of the tabling motion.
Guidance for Procedural Adherence: Board members are encouraged to review all distributed
materials thoroughly prior to meetings, allowing them to participate in informed discussions
and timely decision-making. In future instances, if a motion to table is made due to
unpreparedness or lacks a specific, compelling reason, members should consider raising a Point
of Order to maintain adherence to Robert’s Rules and to ensure efficient board proceedings.
REPEATED TABLING
It was observed during the meeting that multiple agenda items were tabled consecutively.
According to Robert’s Rules of Order, tabling is intended to defer discussion temporarily when
new or pressing information is required, not as a routine practice. Repeated tabling of items
without specific and compelling reasons can disrupt the progression of scheduled discussions,
delay essential decision-making, and hinder the board’s ability to fulfill its responsibilities
effectively.
Guidance for Future Meetings: Board members are encouraged to limit the use of tabling to
situations where genuinely new information or unforeseen circumstances justify deferral.
When considering tabling an item, members should provide specific reasons and clear timelines
for revisiting the matter. If repeated tabling occurs without sufficient rationale, members may
raise a Point of Order to ensure that board business proceeds in a timely and efficient manner.
By minimizing unnecessary delays, the board can maintain a productive and effective meeting
structure.
VOTING PROCESS
During the meeting, it was noted that the voting process did not consistently include a clear call
for those opposed or abstaining. According to Robert’s Rules of Order, the voting process
should include an opportunity for members to express opposition or abstention, ensuring that
all voices are heard and recorded accurately. Failing to provide this opportunity can lead to
unintentional abstentions or lack of clarity in the board’s decision-making record.
Guidance for Future Meetings: To uphold transparency and accuracy, the chair is encouraged
to explicitly call for votes “in favor,” “opposed,” and “abstaining” during each vote. This practice
ensures that all members are given a clear opportunity to cast their votes and that the board’s
decisions are accurately documented. Members may also raise a Point of Order if they observe
that the voting process is incomplete or unclear, helping to maintain procedural integrity and
clear outcomes in the board’s governance.
Impact on Voting Integrity: According to Robert’s Rules of Order, the chair should call for both
“ayes” (votes in favor) and “nays” (votes against) to ensure a complete vote count. When the
chair only calls for “ayes” and fails to ask for “nays,” members who do not support the motion
are not given an opportunity to formally vote “no.” This oversight may pressure members who
disagree to abstain by default, which inaccurately reflects the board’s stance on the motion and
skews the record.
Procedural Note for Correction: If this irregularity occurs, a board member may raise a Point of
Order to request that the chair calls for “nays” to ensure a complete vote. If the chair accepts
the point, they should immediately reopen the vote and ask for “nays” before concluding the
results.
