Guest at meeting unbenounced to some members

[Guest Todd]

I recently became a member of a council where Roberts Rules are supposedly kept.  We had a guest show up at our meeting, unbenounced to many members. He was apparently invited by the chair.  Is this allowed without a vote?  If you have the answer, please tell me where it is stated in Roberts rules.  Thank you.  

[Benjamin Geiger]

RONR 12 (11th ed.) p. 644 ll. 22-23 says: "A society has the right to determine who may be present at its meetings...". That said, it doesn't explicitly specify whether nonmembers are permitted to attend by default, but the rest of the relevant text seems to be written under the assumption that nonmembers are allowed to attend unless their presence is objected to.

Allowing a nonmember to speak outside of debate requires a majority vote^*. Allowing a nonmember to speak in debate requires a motion to Suspend the Rules, requiring a 2/3 vote (p. 263n). Nonmembers cannot be permitted to vote even with a motion to Suspend the Rules(p. 263 ll. 18-24). (* I don't have a source for this from RONR, but there is a discussion on the subject in this thread from a couple of years ago.)

If the presence of nonmembers is a problem, the assembly can go into an executive session (in which case nonmembers are required to leave unless an exception is made for them).

Edited January 18, 2018 at 05:57 PM by Benjamin Geiger
Apparently when I'm drunk I can read books from the future.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

RONR 12 p. 644 ll. 22-23 says: . . . . 

You have the 12th edition? Please tell me where I can get one!

Perhaps you meant to say "RONR (11th ed.)" instead of "RONR 12"?? 

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

RONR 12 p. 644 ll. 22-23 says: "A society has the right to determine who may be present at its meetings...". That said, it doesn't explicitly specify whether nonmembers are permitted to attend by default, but the rest of the relevant text seems to be written under the assumption that nonmembers are allowed to attend unless their presence is objected to.

Allowing a nonmember to speak outside of debate requires a majority vote^*. Allowing a nonmember to speak in debate requires a motion to Suspend the Rules, requiring a 2/3 vote (p. 263n). Nonmembers cannot be permitted to vote even with a motion to Suspend the Rules(p. 263 ll. 18-24). (* I don't have a source for this from RONR, but there is a discussion on the subject in this thread from a couple of years ago.)

If the presence of nonmembers is a problem, the assembly can go into an executive session (in which case nonmembers are required to leave unless an exception is made for them).

For more information on allowing non-members to attend and speak at meetings, you might read the section titled "Public Session" on pages 96-97.

[Guest Todd]

Thank you both for the information.  Since it says: "A society has the right to determine who may be present at its meetings..." I take that to mean the whole council, not just the chair.  So, if a non member is invited, the other members should be informed of it a few days in advance so they may vote on it.   We were taken by surprise, and unprepared.  I think deliberately so.  

[Tom Coronite]

You don't need to know days in advance in order to vote on it; you could raise the issue (and vote) at the meeting when you become aware of it. It may be uncomfortable and/or awkward, and it would be nice had the president told you, but if it's important enough, even without advance notice, the assembly has the right. How would you vote on it before the meeting anyway, IOW, conduct business outside the meeting?

Edited January 18, 2018 at 01:50 PM by Tom Coronite

[Josh Martin]

11 hours ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

That said, it doesn't explicitly specify whether nonmembers are permitted to attend by default, but the rest of the relevant text seems to be written under the assumption that nonmembers are allowed to attend unless their presence is objected to.

This is governed by the assembly’s rules or customs. In some assemblies, no non-members are permitted to attend unless their presence is objected to. In others, they are not permitted to attend unless specifically permitted.

6 hours ago, Guest Todd said:

Thank you both for the information.  Since it says: "A society has the right to determine who may be present at its meetings..." I take that to mean the whole council, not just the chair.  So, if a non member is invited, the other members should be informed of it a few days in advance so they may vote on it.   We were taken by surprise, and unprepared.  I think deliberately so.  

If this is becoming a problem, the council is free to adopt rules on this subject, but the council cannot vote outside of a meeting unless the bylaws so provide.

EDIT: Changed “members” to “non-members.”

Edited January 18, 2018 at 08:06 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

30 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

This is governed by the assembly’s rules or customs. In some assemblies, no members are permitted to attend unless their presence is objected to. In others, they are not permitted to attend unless specifically permitted. (Emphasis added)

 

 

 

Perhaps you intended to say "no GUESTS are permitted to attend. . . " rather than "no members are permitted to attend. . . " 

Edited January 18, 2018 at 03:22 PM by Richard Brown

[Joshua Katz]

12 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Perhaps you intended to say "no GUESTS are permitted to attend. . . " rather than "no members are permitted to attend. . . " 

Or "non-members."

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

3 hours ago, Guest Todd said:

So, if a non member is invited, the other members should be informed of it a few days in advance so they may vote on it.

That would be courteous. However, all you need do when the guest is present is to raise a Question of Privilege and then move to go into executive session. This is a high-ranking motion that can be made when any other motion except Recess, Adjourn, and Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn is before the council. You will need a second and the matter will be decided by majority vote.

[jstackpo]

Executive Session might be a bit of overkill; you may not need to proceed in secrecy.  A simple motion to "Excuse the guest" might be enough.  At least kick him/her out politely.

[Guest Todd]

Tom Coronite, our council has adopted Roberts Rules to allow voting on certain issues using an email before or after a meeting.   What are the parameters of what can and can not be voted by email outside of a meeting I am not sure, perhaps it’s at the descression of the chair.

Thanks to everyone who contributed.    We have another meeting next week, this information will help as I challenge the proceedings from the last meeting in November, as I and another member seek to conduct meetings that are done decently, and in order.   

[jstackpo]

Voting "outside of a meeting", via e-mail or the like, must be authorized, with operational details, in the bylaws. It isn't "at the discretion" of any individual.

Robert's does NOT authorize any such thing.

[Benjamin Geiger]

4 hours ago, Guest Todd said:

Since it says: "A society has the right to determine who may be present at its meetings..." I take that to mean the whole council, not just the chair.

As I understand it, the chair makes the call, but a member (but not the guest) can appeal that decision, taking it to the assembly for a vote.

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

This is governed by the assembly’s rules or customs. In some assemblies, no members are permitted to attend unless their presence is objected to. In others, they are not permitted to attend unless specifically permitted.

In the absence of existing rules or customs, I guess the reaction to the guest's presence would establish a new custom?

2 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Or "non-members."

Right: I parsed it as "In some assemblies, non members are permitted to attend..."

7 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

You have the 12th edition? Please tell me where I can get one!

Perhaps you meant to say "RONR (11th ed.)" instead of "RONR 12"?? 

Apparently the beer I was drinking last night was so strong I was able to read books that may not have been written yet.

[Rev Ed]

10 hours ago, Guest Todd said:

I recently became a member of a council where Roberts Rules are supposedly kept.  We had a guest show up at our meeting, unbenounced to many members. He was apparently invited by the chair.  Is this allowed without a vote?  If you have the answer, please tell me where it is stated in Roberts rules.  Thank you.  

Just as a heads up - no one else seems to have picked up on the word 'council.'  If this is a town or city council, then sunshine rules may apply and non-members (i.e. citizens) may be allowed to attend meetings.

Of course, the invitation to a meeting may also occur via unanimous consent.  For some organizations, the Board may allow new members of the organization (not the Board) to attend a Board meeting as a way of introduction.  Or there may be a special rule that allows the Chairman, in some circumstances, to invite non-members to attend.  For example, if the Board has to approve new members of the organization, the Chairman may be authorized to invite potential new members to attend the Board meeting where they are discussing whether or not to accept the new member.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Guest Todd said:

Tom Coronite, our council has adopted Roberts Rules to allow voting on certain issues using an email before or after a meeting.  

I don’t understand what this means. Robert’s Rules does not permit voting by e-mail.

Do you mean to say that you have adopted rules in your bylaws that permit voting by e-mail?

2 hours ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

As I understand it, the chair makes the call, but a member (but not the guest) can appeal that decision, taking it to the assembly for a vote.

In the event that a non-member is disorderly, the chair may order him removed, subject to appeal. Beyond that, the chair has no authority to decide whether non-members may be present.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

In the absence of existing rules or customs, I guess the reaction to the guest's presence would establish a new custom?

Well, I don’t know that one event establishes a custom, but yes, the assembly’s reactions may eventually establish a custom, or the assembly may adopt formal rules on the subject.

2 hours ago, Rev Ed said:

Just as a heads up - no one else seems to have picked up on the word 'council.'  If this is a town or city council, then sunshine rules may apply and non-members (i.e. citizens) may be allowed to attend meetings.

I rather that doubt that this is a public body. The assembly seems to have been shocked and appalled that a non-member was attending, while this would presumably be a regular occurrence for a public body.

[Joshua Katz]

39 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I don’t understand what this means. Robert’s Rules does not permit voting by e-mail.

 

I read adopted as adapted.

[Tom Coronite]

3 hours ago, Guest Todd said:

    We have another meeting next week, this information will help as I challenge the proceedings from the last meeting in November, as I and another member seek to conduct meetings that are done decently, and in order.   

Fair enough. But I hope you don't mean you plan on challenging anything that was done at that meeting solely because a non-member was there. That fact alone would not nullify other actions taken. Or maybe I misunderstand your point.

[Rev Ed]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

I rather that doubt that this is a public body. The assembly seems to have been shocked and appalled that a non-member was attending, while this would presumably be a regular occurrence for a public body.

Then again, if no one spoke up, I guess the non-member was welcome by unanimous consent. 

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I read adopted as adapted.

That would make more sense, thanks.

Although that still leaves the rather concerning matter that the bylaws are apparently unclear on what “certain items” e-mail voting is authorized for.

2 hours ago, Rev Ed said:

Then again, if no one spoke up, I guess the non-member was welcome by unanimous consent. 

Well, if we equate “didn’t know how to challenge the chair on the issue” with “consent,” sure.

[Guest Todd]

Tom,  we do mean to challenge what was done, but not due to the disregarding of Roberts Rules.  It has been discovered as we looked up past minutes that our guest told some untrue statements on key issues to gain advantages for himself.   The chair person attended the past meetings and agreed with his statements that were found to be untrue.  This is the main issue, but to further bolster our grievance we would like to show that things have not been done according to the rules.

 

thanks again everyone for your help.