J. J.

Can anyone offer insight on why the motion "Close Suggestions" was dropped from the 12th edition?  

On 4/25/2024 at 11:07 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Perhaps, but it is undeniable that the opportunity exists exactly to the extent that it would if the participants were in a single room—because they are.

I am now wondering if the single room or area is the actual standard.

On 4/24/2024 at 7:26 PM, Richard Brown said:

Not in the way it is with the rules imposed by the chair in this situation.  You're reaching, JJ.

I am not looking at it in just this situation. I am looking at the broader rule. 

If the definition is that they all have to be in the same physical location, no matter how conducive for conducting a meeting, I would agree. 

On 4/24/2024 at 3:12 PM, Dan Honemann said:

That may well be, but since the assembly is meeting in a single room or area, the assembly is obviously meeting under "conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" as would exist if it were meeting "in a single room or area".

Yet, even in a single room, the "opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" may be lacking. 

On 4/24/2024 at 11:28 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Not if you understand the english language.

You came up with the definition.  I can see a large area, where not every member can be heard. 

On 4/24/2024 at 10:12 AM, Guest Grace said:

We will be using an agenda. I am preparing it now and want to place unfinished business after the minutes but before we have officers' reports.

If you adopt the agenda that way, that will be the order. 

It would also lay each intervening item of business on the table when pending. 

On 4/24/2024 at 9:17 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I do not disagree.  The test is whether or not the assembly is meeting under "conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" as would exist if it were meeting "in a single room or area".

All that is needed is an honest answer to the question as to whether or not such conditions exist.

Even something in a "single room or area" may not be a deliberative assembly, by this definition. 

A second question is if a meeting of a society whose members are deaf could never be a deliberative assembly? 
 

On 4/24/2024 at 8:50 AM, Dan Honemann said:

At an in-person meeting of a subordinate board of average size, whenever a member says something he will be heard. Whether it is or is not in order for him to do so is beside the point.  If this is not true, for any reason, then as far as RONR is concerned the meeting is not a meeting of a deliberative assembly.

The key words are "subordinate board of average size."  That is certainly not the case in all assemblies.  I would not claim that, in a large body, the case where a member may not be heard by all (unless recognized) would change that characteristic of a deliberative assembly. 

On 4/24/2024 at 3:00 AM, Guest Anonymous said:

We have received a complaint and request for suspension of a board member.  By law states formal complaint process will go the board for review, with a formal review of the charges brought against them. 
 

Would that require this “charged” board member to be involved in the conversation and approval for a formal review of the charges brought against them??

 

If RONR is applicable, at least until the member is notified of the charge, he may vote. 

On 4/24/2024 at 12:11 AM, jkane1517 said:

Interesting thread...  Reading through, I think there are two levels to this issue.

On the first level, can a group adopt specific rules of order, not in conflict with fundamental principles or higher authorities that permit this zoom/online procedure.  Yes, in principle the procedure as outlined here doesn't cause a problem as long as the participants can unmute themselves.  My thinking is thus, the procedure is fine if the practice of having participants use emojis to be recognize by the chair unless the need arises to engage in rising for either a point of order or appeal or some urgent matter that requires interrupting the speaker.   Take for example the issues raised in 62:7-9.  These would almost always require that a member unmute and speak in a manner that didn't have recognition from the chair.  Thus,  in my view while I think the procedure itself is fine, it is an issue if members do not have the ability to unmute themselves.  

To summarize, another way, I think the issue isn't that members are muted on zoom, but do members have the ability to unmute themselves to exercise certain parliamentary rights?  So it is not the issue of being muted, but the ability of members to unmute if needed.

I would first note that holding a meeting that is not in person must be authorized in the bylaws.

Second, at some point, the chair will have to take someone off mute.  At that point, if there has been abuse, that member can raise a point of order and appeal if necessary.  I would also note that the same type of abuse could happen at an in person meeting. 

On 4/21/2024 at 5:38 PM, Guest Hannah said:

My organization frequently meets via Zoom. Is voting on Zoom using the Zoom poll feature equivalent to a secret ballot for in-person meetings? Does RONR address this aspect of virtual meetings?

I will note that, absent a bylaw prohibiting them, write-in votes are permitted for the election of officers.  I am not certain if Zoom can handle that. 

On 4/21/2024 at 11:24 AM, Josh Martin said:

To be clear, by "simultaneously" I understand you to mean sending the call of both meetings simultaneously, not referring to holding both meetings simultaneously. If you mean the latter, that raises a bunch of issues.

 

This was my concern.  I think that, if it there would the requisite number of members that wanted to consider Item A and a requisite number of members that wanted to consider Item B, they could both be noticed on the same piece of paper (if anyone still uses that).  

On 4/21/2024 at 9:06 AM, Dan Honemann said:

But if it has to be two separate meetings, the question asked is "Could that 15% call two special membership meetings simultaneously or must they only call one and then hold that meeting before calling another?".

I think they certainly do not need to wait for meeting A to be held before calling meeting B (unless, of course, what meeting B will be called for depends in part upon what happens at meeting A), but can they be called simultaneously? 

I see nothing in RONR which addresses this question, and I cannot at the moment think of any reason why this could not be done. One reason to do it might be to save postage.  If so, I would suggest that two separate calls be prepared to be included in one envelope.  Incorporating both calls into a single document is apt to lead to confusion.  If the cost of postage is not an issue, it would be best to mail out separate calls, and I see no reason why this could not be done on the same day.

There would be, in theory, the possibility of calling two simultaneous meetings at two different locations.  

15% could call one special meeting that would deal with two items of properly noticed business. 

I am not sure why they would need to call two.

If they wished to deal with two separate items of business, they could call the meeting for both of them.  If for some reason they could not, then it would have to be to separate meetings, 

On 4/20/2024 at 3:36 PM, Dan Honemann said:

 Yes, I think it does make a difference.

As I may have previously indicated, I think that a motion regarding the timeframe for publishing the minutes of a meeting currently in session is a motion "that may arise in connection with the transaction of such business or the conduct of the meeting", thus permitting its consideration at a special meeting even although it was not mentioned in the call.  

My concern was with the fact that the motion appeared to be a motion directing the secretary to perform a duty which the bylaws place him under no obligation to perform.  If, as now appears to have been the case, the secretary had previously agreed to perform this duty, it seems to me that the motion may well have been in order.

If the secretary did not previously agree to perform the duty, I would take it to be out of order?   

If there was disagreement on the board and the subject would be decided the parent assembly, the losing side on the board might request permission to present a report.  

On 4/20/2024 at 11:53 AM, Josh Martin said:

Well, now I'm confused, but I suppose it will ultimately be up to the organization to resolve this matter.

The information was submitted to the members and, as a result, an appeal was filed on a related matter. 

On 4/20/2024 at 11:53 AM, Atul Kapur said:

I appreciated his wise words here and, more so, his kindness and manner here and when we  corresponded.

I hope, @J. J., that you can convey our condolences to George's family.

I shall attempt it.

On 4/20/2024 at 11:39 AM, Dan Honemann said:

No, it doesn't. An organization can adopt whatever rules it wishes for the governance of its proceedings provided that such rules do not violate the constitutional rights of any of its members or conflict with any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to it.

 

In what sense are you using the term "constitutional rights?"  A right created by constitution or bylaws of the local society?  

I'm not disagreeing, just asking for clarification.   

On 4/20/2024 at 11:14 AM, Josh Martin said:

Yes, to the extent this is correct, this would mean this would be a main motion which conflicted with the bylaws, which would also be a continuing breach.

Again, however, I think the issue would be moot if the Secretary (still) voluntarily agrees to perform this task. (Although I gather the Secretary has likely changed their mind, which is what gives rise to this argument.)

I'm in complete agreement.  As a factual matter, the secretary did not change his mind and did submit the information. 

In fact, the information he submitted led to an appeal to their Judicial Committee, ironically. 

On 4/20/2024 at 10:38 AM, Drake Savory said:

Could the argument be made that preparing the draft minutes in a timely manner actually is in connection with the business of the next meeting considering that is where the draft minutes will be read and approved/amended? 

No, because in this case the next convention is a special convention as well.  The next regular convention is in 2025. 

On 4/20/2024 at 10:22 AM, Josh Martin said:

No, it would not make any difference. The alleged violation here relates to a rule which protects absentees. To the extent such a violation has in fact occurred, that would be a continuing breach, so the fact that a Point of Order was not raised at the time is immaterial.

The fact the Secretary agreed to this may well make the whole issue moot if the Secretary is still willing to stand by that agreement and voluntarily produce and publish the minutes as requested. But if the Secretary has changed their mind since then, I don't think this solves anything.

Another point raised was that the motion was out of order because it assigned an additional duty to the secretary beyond what was required in the bylaws. 

On 3/31/2024 at 8:25 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, I understood you to be saying that it is not in order to direct an officer to perform a duty which the bylaws place him under no obligation to perform.  I think this is correct, and a motion directing him to do such a thing would be out of order at any meeting, regular or special.  Apparently, I misunderstood what you were saying.

I did not initially raise that point.

On 4/20/2024 at 10:23 AM, Drake Savory said:

But absent a Board's directive, who decides how to run the meeting ... at least until the Board has an opportunity to decide what rules to use?

 

The assembly, via a point of order.

On 4/20/2024 at 9:37 AM, Drake Savory said:

Apparently J.J. has been at the meetings of organizations I belong to because that is the rule there.

Apparently J.J has been at many HOA-from-Hell meetings too.

It appears that this rule is similar to a "card" rule.  A member would not need to speak to seek recognition. 

Conversely, under regular rules, there can be a problem with the chair not properly recognizing members.