joejk

Two questions: 1. If we run out of time at the end of a meeting, and not everyone has had two chances to speak, what happens? Can the chair just close debate and call for a vote because time ran out? 2. Our chair sometimes decides before a meeting that each member will only have, say, 2 minutes in each round of debate. Can he decide this unilaterally, or does it need to be passed by the entire board through a motion? Thank you so much.

Yes, the society did actually do the thing that was proposed, and it did cost money. Our organization is so dysfunctional that holding the president responsible for this will be very difficult, unfortunately. We are slowly making progress with changing the procedures and the culture of the organization.

That's an interesting point, Shmuel. If you at all care about the details: In this case, it was a matter of whether or not an action had been approved at a meeting. At the meeting in question (to the extent that we were even using RONR we were using small board rules), I do believe he made a good faith effort to get unanimous consent on an action, but everything was so casual--people were actually collecting their coats--and it was brought up so ambiguously, that at least 5 of the 9 people there had no idea that an action had been proposed (let alone approved). The action was carried out, and most of those who did not think we had approved the action did not want it to appear in the minutes that we had (and since there was no vote, the only thing that could go in the minutes was that it was approved by unanimous consent, which implicated us). To make a long political story short, come the next meeting, it looks like the 2 people who were not at the previous meeting are the swing voters. So the chair, who has a lot of sway over these two voters politically, argues that RONR says those people have a duty to vote on an amendment to the minutes (we all assume they will vote his way), and those of us on the other side argue that they have no basis for forming an opinion on what happened during the meeting since they weren't there, and should abstain (in which case we win). We have since resolved this (nothing went in the minutes about whether the action was passed), but the chair continues to make this point that those not at a meeting have "a duty" or are "encouraged" to participate in minutes approval in every case. At this point he's probably just trying to save face. But I would definitely love to get second and third opinions on this situation.

Thank you! I figured as much but wanted to be sure.

Our chair told me that when a motion is made, and debate has not yet started on that motion, and then someone moves previous question, it only takes a simple majority to pass that previous question motion (not 2/3 majority as it would if debate had started). I can't find anything about this in RONR and it seems very strange because you're taking away the right to debate with just a simple majority...so, is this actually true?

Thanks everyone, this is so helpful. Kim G: Yes, I think one of those other interruption motions might have helped in the situation and I will keep those handy. George M: Thank you, I see now what you were trying to say in your first post. I was speaking too loosely. What happened was that a correction had been proposed and there was an objection to the correction, at which point we debate and vote as in a regular amendment to a main motion, right? So to be more precise, my question was whether people not at the meeting have a duty or rather just a right to vote on a proposed amendment to the minutes, if it goes to a vote and is not just approved by unanimous consent. This seems to me to have been answered by a number of people, that it is a right but not a duty. Let me know if I'm still not understanding you, the point was very helpful. As for why he said this, it was clearly to encourage those not at the original meeting to vote on the amendment to the minutes, because he knew if they did vote, they would likely vote against the amendment because they knew that was how he would have wanted them to vote. He has a habit of making things up about procedure and taking advantage of the fact that most of us don't know much about procedure. I can't force my colleagues to fill that lacuna in their knowledge, but I am doing my best to learn what I need to know.

I understand how the minutes are approved, but do members who were not there have a duty to vote on the minutes or just a right? And if the chair is rambling and says something factually untrue about procedure, how do you challenge it?

New to RONR and the forum, but having a great time learning everything. Our board recently had a dispute over the minutes, and the circumstances led some of us to think that those not present at the meeting should recuse themselves. The chair had an interest in these people voting on the minutes as they are often puppet votes for him. We all accepted that those not present at the meeting have a right to vote on the minutes for that meeting. The chair interjected at one point that not only are members not present at the meeting allowed to vote on the minutes, they have a duty to vote on the minutes. I took that as a decision of the chair and tried to appeal it because nothing like that is in the relevant section of RONR. I was told by another member that it was not a decision/ruling, but merely the chair stating his opinion. So my appeal was not considered. Two questions then: 1. Is the chair correct that members not at the meeting have not only a right but a duty to vote on the minutes? If so, where does it say this in RONR? 2. Can the chair just state an opinion like that without making a ruling? If so, how do you challenge it? The chair's opinion carries a lot of weight and if no one challenges it it's likely to be taken as fact. If he does something like that again, do I just have to wait until it's my turn to speak to give my own opinion? And what if I have no more chances to speak? And if anyone can give references to RONR about the chair stating an opinion that would be fantastic. Thanks for your help!