Motion to forward to the board all correspondence addressed to the board?

[Guest Suzanne]

I serve on a board as the secretary. There have been a handful of instances recently where certain board members have not been forwarding correspondence that has been addressed to the board as a whole, or where an officer has provided the board with only an excerpt of an email. Some of this correspondence has dealt with legal issues.

Should I make a motion requiring all board members to distribute to the entire board all correspondence they receive that is addressed to the board as a whole, or is there something in RONR that addresses this? Is there ever a situation in which an officer should withhold correspondence addressed to the board? 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

RONR does not address it. Your board could adopt a motion on the matter.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

That is an outrage.

There is no parliamentary solution to:

    (a.) unethical board members.

    (b.) board members who edit incoming letters meant for the board, or for the general membership.

You can only punish them, after the fact.

You cannot stop their dishonesty, or prevent their crimes.

***

Yes, you may adopt rules. -- But if your board members are already censoring incoming letters, anyone with that kind of mindset won't respect such a rule. They are already corrupt. They do not respect their fellow board members. So they won't respect a rule adopted by the board.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

2 hours ago, Guest Suzanne said:

Is there ever a situation in which an officer should withhold correspondence addressed to the board? 

Yes. When (s)he has something to hide.

[Guest Suzanne]

22 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

RONR does not address it. Your board could adopt a motion on the matter.

Good stuff. I'll bring forth the motion. (It seems ridiculous that this motion would have to be made, but then who would have thought emails to the whole board wouldn't be forwarded?)

 

 

21 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

That is an outrage.

There is no parliamentary solution to:

    (a.) unethical board members.

    (b.) board members who edit incoming letters meant for the board, or for the general membership.

You can only punish them, after the fact.

You cannot stop their dishonesty, or prevent their crimes.

***

Yes, you may adopt rules. -- But if your board members are already censoring incoming letters, anyone with that kind of mindset won't respect such a rule. They are already corrupt. They do not respect their fellow board members. So they won't respect a rule adopted by the board.

Sigh. You may be correct. I, too, find it a bit outrageous. 

 

19 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Yes. When (s)he has something to hide.

For one of the board members, I'm guessing it's more of an attempt to protect the individual writing the letter. (I can't confirm that until/unless I see the actual letter, of course.)

For the other board member...I surely hope they're not trying to hide something. Sheesh.

 

[g40]

Depending on the details, perhaps a better approach might be:

1. Provide an "official" address for member communication to "The Board"

2. Provide that if/when Board members receive communications to "The Board" that they suggest that the member send such communication to the address of #1 as well as forwarding it to "The Board"