"taping" board meeting

[Guest zeus]

Is an elected board member allowed to "tape" a meeting for accuracy of what was said and voted on?

[George Mervosh]

No rule in RONR prohibits it.

[Steven Britton]

Is an elected board member allowed to "tape" a meeting for accuracy of what was said and voted on?

There is no rule in Robert's prohibiting or permitting the use of recording devices at meetings.

Unless there's some sort of superior rule (in the nature of a statute or bylaw) that permits or restricts the recording of meetings, it's up to the assembly to decide for itself whether it wishes to allow for recordings, or prohibit them.

If the assembly adopts a rule (other than a bylaw) regarding the subject, it's creating a standing rule (see p. 265, line 28 - 29) and it's adopted or suspended by a majority vote (suspended only for the duration of that meeting), and amended by a two-thirds vote, without notice.

[Guest Guest]

So you can tape since its not listed in either wayin RROO?

[Guest Edgar]

So you can tape since its not listed in either wayin RROO?

You can tape if the assembly (the members present) lets you tape. There may also be other applicable rules.

Just because RONR has nothing to say about speed limits doesn't mean you can drive down the highway at 100 MPH.

[Steven Britton]

So you can tape since its not listed in either wayin RROO?

No, if there is no applicable rule or law that interferes with what Robert's states (or doesn't state in this case) you may only record the proceedings if the assembly allows you that priviledge. If the chair or assembly take action regarding the recording and orders you to turn-off the device, you're obligated to follow the order.

<edited 5:40 p.m.>

[Trina]

No, if there is no applicable rule or law that interferes with what Robert's states (or doesn't state in this case) you may only record the proceedings if the assembly allows you that priviledge. If the chair or assembly take action regarding the recording and orders you to turn-off the device, you're obligated to follow the order.

<edited 5:40 p.m.>

Why do you believe the chair acting alone can give such an order? (honest question)

[Steven Britton]

Why do you believe the chair acting alone can give such an order? (honest question)

In an organization, citing custom or precedents (or not), the chair could order a recording device be turned-off. If no one has ever attempted to record a meeting before, the chair could rule that the organization has not customarily recorded its meetings. Or, the chair could submit the question to a majority vote of the members present.

If the chair doesn't submit the question to the assembly, it would be up to the members to follow the chair's order or to assert itself, by appealing the chair's decision. The assembly ultimately decides, by a majority vote or by silently giving its consent, whether to allow the recording device, or not (one way, or another).

<edited 6:36 p.m.>

[Gary c Tesser]

Ooo, Trina, he did that well, didn't he?

[Steven Britton]

Ooo, Trina, he did that well, didn't he?

Hi Gary good to hear from you.

Another variable is that after the chair cites custom, someone could raise a point-of-order, and the custom would fall to the ground. Someone could move to adopt a rule to permit recording or prohibit recording. Also, the chair could submit the point of order to the assembly for a vote. The majority would prevail. One way or another....

Hope everything in the "City" that doesn't sleep, is going well.

[Gary c Tesser]

Why do you believe the chair acting alone can give such an order? (honest question)

I'm on the fence here about this specific question. Assume, for the sake of argument, that a prohibition qualifies as custom (RONR 11th Ed, p. 19, line 5), and that it qualifies just because nobody ever tried taping before: I think the chairman is entirely justified in ordering that the machine be turned off --without mentioning any justification, just like a ruling based on the parliamentary authority, without mentioning it -- and that's The Law, like any other ruling.

Now it's tricky: suppose someone raises a point of order that the chair does not have the authority to tell someone not to use a recorder. What does the chairman say -- that currently, custom governs (since nobody raised a differing written rule, yadda yadda)?

[Gary c Tesser]

(Ooo, I lost sight of Mr Britton's completely on-point post, except for the quibble about the chair citing custom without challenge. But of course he would in giving the reason for his ruling, if someone raised a point of order. If no one did, we'd all have to guess, except for us for whom it was just a plain-and-simple fact.)

(By the way, everybody go buy another copy of RONR - IB, second edition. unpaid advt.)

[George Mervosh]

Why do you believe the chair acting alone can give such an order? (honest question)

What will be the basis of his ruling?

[J. J.]

What will be the basis of his ruling?

I think, in this case, that the custom has been that no member has taped the meeting before. This is presumably not the first meeting of the society . If members had taped the meeting in the past, the custom could, however, that taping is permitted and the chair should rule accordingly.

In any event, the chair's decision is subject to appeal. Further, the board may:

1. Adopt a motion covering the conduct of members within that meeting, that will apply during that meeting.

2. Adopt a rule (I'd say a special rule) covering their conduct at that meeting, and all future meetings (provided it does not conflict with bylaws or rules of the assembly).

[Gary c Tesser]

I think, in this case, that the custom has been that no member has taped the meeting before. This is presumably not the first meeting of the society . If members had taped the meeting in the past, the custom could, however, that taping is permitted and the chair should rule accordingly.

Well put. (Oh, and the same to Mr Britton.)

... the board may:

2. Adopt a rule (I'd say a special rule) covering their conduct at that meeting, ...

Not an administrative (p. 18) rule, you think?

[J. J.]

Not an administrative (p. 18) rule, you think?

I think this relates to decorum within the meeting. A rule that no male member could participate in a meeting unless he wears a jacket and tie, to me, would be a rule of order. I think that a rule, you can't (or can) do something during a meeting, specifically, would be a rule of order. A rule, e.g. "All members of the Order are obliged to wear some badge of the Order in public in an ostensible manner at all times," would be administrative. (That is an actual rule, BTW.)

[Trina]

I think this relates to decorum within the meeting. A rule that no male member could participate in a meeting unless he wears a jacket and tie, to me, would be a rule of order.

...

Really? A dress code for meetings is a rule of order?

Or, looking at it another way, if the bylaws required all members to wear the official club hat at club meetings in order to exercise their rights of membership, this rule would be in the nature of a rule of order, and could be suspended?

I find it kind of hard to swallow that a dress code requirement fits into the statement that 'such rules relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection. The object of rules of order is to facilitate the smooth functioning of the assembly and to provide a firm basis in resolving questions of procedure that may arise.' (RONR 11th ed. p. 15 ll. 9-13)

[George Mervosh]

I think, in this case, that the custom has been that no member has taped the meeting before. This is presumably not the first meeting of the society . If members had taped the meeting in the past, the custom could, however, that taping is permitted and the chair should rule accordingly.

I think the "we haven't done it before so it's improper" position is a massive stretch, J.J.

[Tim Wynn]

I think the "we haven't done it before so it's improper" position is a massive stretch, J.J.

I concur.

[J. J.]

I think the "we haven't done it before so it's improper" position is a massive stretch, J.J.

I don't call it a stretch at all. Keep in mind, however, that the decision is subject to appeal. If the majority does not agree, they may properly reverse the decision.

Likewise, the member could, using a different track, move to permit taping. Even if the point of order that taping was not well taken and then sustained on appeal, I would rule the motion in order.

[Tim Wynn]

I don't call it a stretch at all. Keep in mind, however, that the decision is subject to appeal. If the majority does not agree, they may properly reverse the decision.

Likewise, the member could, using a different track, move to permit taping. Even if the point of order that taping was not well taken and then sustained on appeal, I would rule the motion in order.

I still concur with George.

[J. J.]

Really? A dress code for meetings is a rule of order?

If that would, in some way, limit the member's right to participate in the meeting, yes.

Or, looking at it another way, if the bylaws required all members to wear the official club hat at club meetings in order to exercise their rights of membership, this rule would be in the nature of a rule of order, and could be suspended?

I find it kind of hard to swallow that a dress code requirement fits into the statement that 'such rules relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection. The object of rules of order is to facilitate the smooth functioning of the assembly and to provide a firm basis in resolving questions of procedure that may arise.' (RONR 11th ed. p. 15 ll. 9-13)

Suspension is another issue, but yes, a dress code could be a rule of order. As recently as March 28, 2012, Illinois Representative Bobby Rush was removed from the floor of the US House for donning a hoodie in debate.

[J. J.]

I still concur with George.

You'd be free to appeal. If you appeal was unsuccessful, you would be free to move to permit taping. I would, if chairing, advising you that, whatever my ruling, you could appeal it., i.e. "In making this ruling, the chair will note that it is subject to appeal."

[Steven Britton]

I concur.

The roll of custom is defined on p. 19. There's a first time for everything. I would with "concur" with J.J.'s well reasoned answer. If the the chair cites the "lack of a custom or precedent" the assembly is either going to acquiesce to the chairs order, or appeal (perhaps after his ruling on a point of order), Or maybe the question would be assumed by the chair and put to a majority vote.

[Tim Wynn]

The roll of custom is defined on p. 19.

I don't consider the fact that "someting has never been done before" to reasonably fall into the category of "a particular practice."

It would be one thing for the chair to make the members aware that the taping of the proceedings could be prevented by the assembly, but for the chair to pretend that recording a meeting is prohibited by RONR, due to the fact that it has never happened before, is the very definition of a stretch.