J. J.

On 4/19/2024 at 7:43 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Maybe not in this particular organization ... yet.

But it has definitely occurred in this type of circumstance.

That could also happen at an in person meeting. 

On 4/19/2024 at 6:31 PM, Drake Savory said:

I don't think that is an issue of this zoom rule per se as it is a Chair that doesn't recognize a member that he should. 

While I agree that this is a potential problem, no one has claimed that this has happened. 

On 4/19/2024 at 5:54 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

But that is the way that it is done in an in-person meeting.  Without that it is not a deliberative assembly.

It could be.  

Would adopting a special rule saying that a member, to be recognized, must hold up a color coded card make the body no longer a deliberative assembly?  Such a rule would be in order. 

On 4/19/2024 at 5:48 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Of course.  Otherwise how could a motion that is permitted to interrupt someone speaking be able to interrupt someone speaking.  The fact that members can speak without being recognized is essential to raising a point of order.  But they are not "permitted" to speak, except as the rules of order provide.

This does provide a way to interrupt a speaker, but not by yelling something out. 

On 4/19/2024 at 4:17 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Whether the Chair is or is not inclined to abuse a rule is beside the point.

Mr. Martin, do you have any doubt but that a rule such as the one presented at the outset of this thread will, if applied, remove the opportunity for simultaneous aural communication such as exists when the board members are present at an in-person meeting?

I would not say that it does.  Seeking recognition does not, in itself, require simultaneous aural communication.  That type communication would occur as a result of that recognition. 

On 4/19/2024 at 3:56 PM, Dan Honemann said:

No, of course not.  The opportunity for simultaneous aural communication exists when the members present are able to hear each other.  

Then it does exist and it is a deliberate assembly in that sense. 

On 4/19/2024 at 1:12 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I didn't expect that I would be starting a firestorm.   😀

This is what RONR says in 9:31 (with emphasis supplied by me):

"Among some organizations, there is an increasing preference, especially in the case of a relatively small board or other assembly, to transact business at electronic meetings—that is, at meetings at which, rather than all participating members being physically present in one room or area as in traditional (or “face-to-face”) meetings, some or all of them communicate with the others through electronic means such as the Internet or by telephone. A group that holds such alternative meetings does not lose its character as a deliberative assembly (see 1:1) so long as the meetings provide, at a minimum, conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participating members equivalent to those of meetings held in one room or area. Under such conditions, an electronic meeting that is properly authorized in the bylaws is treated as though it were a meeting at which all the members who are participating are actually present."

and in 9:34:

"It is important to understand that, regardless of the technology used, the opportunity for simultaneous aural communication is essential to the deliberative character of the meeting."

At the outset of this thread we were told that a board's chair has proposed a "new process for Zoom meetings: meeting participants will be muted by default, with hand raises noting a desire to speak, and the “X/no” or “Ta-da” emoji noting a desire to make an interrupting motion."  The question was: "So would having all board members muted by default be a violation of this section [referring to 9:31] of RONR ?

I replied by saying: "When members participating in a board meeting are muted, the group that is meeting does not constitute a deliberative assembly (see 1:1, 9:31, 9:34)."  

I thought it was a no-brainer, and I still do.

 

 

Are you suggesting that members should be permitted to speak without recognition, as that seems to be the only way to permit "simultaneous aural communication," at all times. 

Most of your questions deal with Vermont law, not RONR.  Under RONR, there are no rules covering most of these.

Debate can get into the legality of a motion, however, a point of order could only be raised it the motion were to violate a procedural rule of law (23:6 c). 

On 4/19/2024 at 10:25 AM, Atul Kapur said:

 

Related, does the entire assembly need to be able to know who is seeking recognition or seeking to legitimately interrupt? Or is it adequate that only the chair (± assistants) would be made aware? This would, among other things, prevent a member from realizing that a point of order regarding preference in recognition should be raised.

While that is good question, in this case, using the emoji function, all members can see the emoji.

That said, I can see a situation where this could occur at an in person meeting.  For example, a member would push a green button seeking recognition and a red button seeking to interrupt.  A panel in front of the chair would show which member is signaling, but only the chair would see it.

I now have concerns about alternate methods of recognition even in an in person meeting.

I would not have a problem with a rule permitting a signaling device to be used for recognition, e.g. a card or some type of light system, in an in person meeting. 

On 4/19/2024 at 6:17 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Here's what it says:

"SECTION4. REMOVAL BL3.4.1 Elected Leadership Officers or Members may be removed for cause by a two-thirds (⅔) affirmative vote of the Members when a quorum of two-thirds (⅔) is present."

What more do you need?  Do you need it to say "... may be removed for cause simply by a two-thirds (⅔) affirmative vote ..."?

I would say, nothing, if the term clause is "or until a successor is elected."  If it is "and until" or just had a fixed term, I would say a trial.  In the latter case, the bylaw could say "may be removed by motion... ."

With the cited bylaw, would you say that any member could demand a secret ballot on a vote to remove? 

On 4/19/2024 at 5:58 AM, Dan Honemann said:

But if they talk they can be heard.  That's the requirement we're concerned with.

They would not need to be heard to seek recognition.

A rule could be adopted, in an in person meeting, that to seek recognition, a member must hold up a certain colored  and/or shaped card.  Once the card is raised, the chair recognizes the member.  The member then states the motion.  That would not change the characteristic of this as a deliberative assembly.

In this case, their appears to a de facto rule, that if a member wishes recognition, he signals by typing an emoji.  He is then recognized and speaks.   That does not change the deliberative assembly characteristic. 

On 4/18/2024 at 3:25 PM, Josh Martin said:

No.

I don't think what 62:16 says matters. Your bylaws themselves provide their own (very brief) procedure for discipline, which is:

"Elected Leadership Officers or Members may be removed for cause by a two-thirds (⅔) affirmative vote of the Members when a quorum of two-thirds (⅔) is present."

The fact that the provision includes the words "for cause," in and of itself, does not mean that formal disciplinary procedures are required.

It would seem to me that the procedure in this matter would be the same as any other main motion, except that a higher vote threshold (and apparently a higher quorum) is required.

While "for cause" is not the issue, I disagree that the clause provides a process for disciplinary action. 

On 4/18/2024 at 7:58 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Why can't they?

They are not recognized. 

On 4/18/2024 at 6:29 PM, Dan Honemann said:

When members participating in a board meeting are muted, the group that is meeting does not constitute a deliberative assembly (see 1:1, 9:31, 9:34).

Wouldn't that be the case if they cannot enter into debate at an in person meeting? 

He is already missed. 

On 4/17/2024 at 9:17 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Even assuming, a safe assumption, that everyone is right and I am wrong, why in particular is that absurd? Bylaws can say false things. You can adopt a bylaw that the sky is green. More seriously, many years ago we all, I think, eventually agreed that a bylaw saying "there are no rules of order and no points of order are permitted" would be ineffective, since there would be no way to stop someone from raising a point of order that would not, itself, violate that rule. So that rule simply states something false. Why can't this rule?

Actually, I think that the rule you suggested, "no points of order are permitted" is quite effective, though not advisable. 

Absent anything else in the bylaws on how to remove an officer, I would say a trial is necessary.  The bylaw is silent on how the person is removed; the RONR default (62:16) would be controlling.   They bylaws do not "provide otherwise."  

The assembly could adopt a special rule modifying that. 

On 4/17/2024 at 2:16 PM, Guest Andy E said:

I should add that this ruling was challenged and then upheld by a majority vote of the board.  One board member then stated that they were violating RONR 9:31

It would not violate anything in 9:31 any more than saying that someone must be recognized to violates a right to debate (42:2-5).   There may be questions relating to recognition (see 25:11). 

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.

A while back, I made reference to "a motion directing the secretary to publish a draft of the minutes within a certain period of time".  Although I think such a motion might well be one arising in connection with the transaction of business at a special meeting, it may not be in order for the reason stated above. If so, it could instead be a motion requesting the secretary to publish a draft of the minutes within a certain period of time.

@Richard BrownIf I understand this correctly, Mr. Honemann is suggesting that motion itself is out of order without regard to a special meeting. 

Our very good friend George Mervosh passed away this passed weekend.  I just heard from Sandy. 

On 4/16/2024 at 9:58 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

It is absurd to say that a bylaws provision that states it cannot be suspended can be suspended.

It would take an amendment to strike that sentence, after which other suspendible rules in the nature of rules of order would operate normallyu.

 

 

I agree with both Mr. Novosielski and Dr. Kapur. 

The rule prohibiting suspension is not suspendable, though it could be amended (possibly by less than a 2/3 vote). 

A rule requiring a 9/10 vote would require a greater than 9/10 vote to suspend. 

A quorum must be maintained during the whole meeting. 

I would think so, if the board's action can be reversed by the membership meeting. 

1.  Who elects the president? 

2.  What is your quorum?