Recording Points of Privilege by Guests in Minutes

[Student Gov]

I've been lurking for a little while but this is my first question, so my apologies if I'm not doing it right. I am a member of a student association that is usually quiet but has seen some controversy recently. At a Board meeting earlier this year, several members of the association who were not members of the Board were present. (For convenience, I'll refer to them as guests, although that's part of the dispute.)

Our policies state that "All members may attend any meeting. Non-members of the Board may address Board meetings if they have requested to be put on the agenda." One of the guests - guest A - asked permission in advance to address the Board, and at the appropriate point on the agenda, began to make a statement. Another guest - guest B - interrupted A, claiming a point of personal privilege. A Board member then made a point of order that B's point of privilege was out of order. However, the interruption was recorded by the Secretary. At the next meeting, the Board removed the interruption while correcting the draft minutes, noting that B was a guest, had not been extended speaking rights, and their point of privilege was out of order, besides. When B saw the minutes, they made several arguments that the record of their point of privilege should be retained:

1. That they are not a guest, but a full member of the association.

2. That there is a difference between addressing the Board and raising a point of personal privilege.

3. That according to RONR, minutes should include “all points of order and appeals, whether sustained or lost, together with the reasons given by the chair for his or her ruling.” (47.9)

4. That because the point of order ruling them out of order is recorded in the minutes, their point of privilege should also be included, as minutes should include "secondary motions that were not lost or withdrawn, in cases where it is necessary to record them for completeness or clarity." (47.7)

Do any of these arguments have merit? I think they do not, but would appreciate any certainty you can offer. Thank you.

[George Mervosh]

#3 is correct but just state the facts - The board member raised a point of order that Guest B's interruption by attempting to raise a question of privilege was not proper.  Include the presiding officer's ruling and reasoning, if any.

Since Guest B isn't a member of the board they have no input with regard to the minutes, plus they can't make motions, raise questions of privilege, points of order or any such thing, but the fact they tried does not need to be further memorialized.

 

Edited April 6, 2017 at 07:59 PM by George Mervosh
Edit to fix the first run on sentence

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Michael James said:

I've been lurking for a little while but this is my first question, so my apologies if I'm not doing it right. I am a member of a student association that is usually quiet but has seen some controversy recently. At a Board meeting earlier this year, several members of the association who were not members of the Board were present. (For convenience, I'll refer to them as guests, although that's part of the dispute.)

Our policies state that "All members may attend any meeting. Non-members of the Board may address Board meetings if they have requested to be put on the agenda." One of the guests - guest A - asked permission in advance to address the Board, and at the appropriate point on the agenda, began to make a statement. Another guest - guest B - interrupted A, claiming a point of personal privilege. A Board member then made a point of order that B's point of privilege was out of order. However, the interruption was recorded by the Secretary. At the next meeting, the Board removed the interruption while correcting the draft minutes, noting that B was a guest, had not been extended speaking rights, and their point of privilege was out of order, besides. When B saw the minutes, they made several arguments that the record of their point of privilege should be retained:

1. That they are not a guest, but a full member of the association.

2. That there is a difference between addressing the Board and raising a point of personal privilege.

3. That according to RONR, minutes should include “all points of order and appeals, whether sustained or lost, together with the reasons given by the chair for his or her ruling.” (47.9)

4. That because the point of order ruling them out of order is recorded in the minutes, their point of privilege should also be included, as minutes should include "secondary motions that were not lost or withdrawn, in cases where it is necessary to record them for completeness or clarity." (47.7)

Do any of these arguments have merit? I think they do not, but would appreciate any certainty you can offer. Thank you.

1.) These are not mutually exclusive. The individual is a full member of the association, but at a board meeting, he is a guest.

2.) Yes, there is. That is part of the reason it was out of order. Your rules permit members of the association to address the board if they request to be put on the agenda. Nothing in your rules (or in RONR) permits members of the association to raise a point of personal privilege at a board meeting.

3.) This argument does have merit. The board member's point of order, and the chair's ruling, should be recorded in the minutes. That does not mean the point of personal privilege needs to be recorded.

4.) The Point of Order and subsequent ruling were based on the fact that this person was not a member of the board and was not recognized, so I don't think the substance of the point of personal privilege is "necessary... for completeness or clarity."

[Joshua Katz]

Was B on the agenda to whine about the minutes?  If not, he shouldn't have been allowed to comment.

On the points raised:

1.  Irrelevant.  It's a board meeting - a member is a board member, a guest is anyone else. 

2.  Yes there is.  One is permitted to guests who get on the agenda in advance (in your organization), one is not.  He chose to do the one that is not, so I don't see why he'd be raising this point. 

3.  I agree with Mr. Mervosh.

4.  I think Mr. Mervosh's answer covered this as well. 

[Student Gov]

Thank you so much for your detailed and speedy replies! I appreciate the clarifications and will pass them along.