Lori Lukinuk

Do new board members have any rights to be provided prior minutes from executive sessions held before they became board members? Is there any rule in RONR that provides clarity on this?

Thank you George. It's actually the attorney who asked me if RONR covers this. So from his perspective there are no applicable rule restricting starting in executive session. That being said he is wondering if RONR, as their parliamentary authority, covers this. He is looking for such a rule in RONR. You say "but I can't see why, at least from RONR, the meeting cannot be opened and immediately enter into executive session ..." That's my thoughts also. Do to the requirement for their meeting to be held in public, my feeling is to just call the meeting to order, it will be in public at this point, then have a motion to enter into executive session and be done with it. Simple and easy. In saying that though, is there any rule in RONR that allows you to not have to "enter into executive session" but rather call the meeting to order and automatically be in executive session. I hope this is making sense.

If a Board meeting, by law, is required to be held in public except for specific regulated purposes, can it start the meeting in executive session or must it start in public, then move into executive session by a majority vote to deal with the allowed purpose? Does RONR address this anywhere? RONR 9:24 states, "A meeting enters into executive session only when required by rule or established custom, or upon the adoption of a motion to do so." The words "enters into" seem to suggest to me that the meeting must start in public first then enter into executive session. This may be an easy question and I am overthinking it.

I agree with A. Kapur, I would like to note however that the parliamentarian advises the chair and therefore it is not their role to disallow the conduct but rather to advise the chair. The chair choses to accept that advice or not.

An organization has, Approval of the Agenda, in their Regular Meeting order of business. For a Special Meeting, is there a need for Approval of the Agenda? My feeling is no, since the meeting is called to deal with only that which was in the call.

Josh has answered your parliamentary question very well. While you wait for your hard copy of RONR, note there is a kindle version that is searchable and easy to acquire. I find a hard copy a necessity as a working parliamentarian, but very much appreciate they made this 12th edition available electronically.

Thank you Josh. When I read RONR I read it very literally and take note of what is not stated also. Normally the authors are very purposeful in what they write and how they write it. I agree that the assembly might be less likely to grant the request by a single member. I still hesitate to advise a client that an individual even has an option to put such a request forward. While I can cite the passage stating a minority report is an expression of views in the name of a group of committee members, I cannot cite a passage suggesting an individual can request to present a minority report. 51.71 may be an alternative solution to consider as I don't believe the individual member has an issue with the entire report but rather specified sections of it and the recommendation attached.

I'm not sure if they made many, if any, CDs. Most computers no longer have a CD option available. There is however a Kindle version of RONR (12th ed.) which is easy to use and is searchable. I love it.

RONR prescribes that a minority report is "an expression of views in the name of a group of committee members". I do not read where RONR states an individual on their own may request to submit a minority report. I'm looking for clarity if RONR allows an individual, not part of a group of committee members, to request to present a minority report. Yes, I understand it would require a second, but that does not mean the second is part of the group of committee members. Scenario: A committee overwhelmingly approves a report with a recommendation to be presented to the assembly (likely in the 90% approval range). Two individual members do not concur with the report nor the recommendation coming forward. They also do not concur with each others reasoning. Each therefore are wanting to request to present minority reports to the assembly which include recommendations. They are not interested in simply voting against the proposed wording nor amending it. They are wanting to go the minority report route.

Thank you Rob. While that is true, my question is specific to the request to submit a minority report.

RONR (12th ed)51:64 states, The formal presentation of a so-called "minority report" - that is, the presentation of an expression of views in the name of a group of committee members not concurring with the committee report - is usually allowed by the assembly when such permission is requested ... " Question: Can an individual member of a committee request to present a minority report? If the answer is yes, and I hope the answer is no, on a larger scale, can individual members of a committee each request to present separate minority reports that they perceive are each different?

Thank you Daniel. That was my first instinct. I have told the individual that a member may raise a point of order if they feel the revised wording is not within the scope of the original wording.

If a member gives notice of a motion at the previous meeting and then wishes to substitute different wording at the meeting where it is to be considered, can they do that before the motion is seconded and stated by the chair and without the permission of the assembly? The different wording is desired to provide clearer meaning to the motion, and is within the scope of the original noticed motion. Or ... does the original wording need to be seconded and stated then the maker can amend by substitution?

I apologize for not clarifying some of the questions arising from the discussion in this thread. I have been out of town and just arrived back last night. I will not produce the exact motion so that the organization cannot be identified. It was however, "that X organization support a specific system." This motion was adopted over 15 years ago and even then was very divisive. About 7 years ago a motion to reaffirm support for the "specific system" was defeated. I believe those who brought the reaffirming motion forward were thinking it would pass and garner further support and bring the issue back into the public eye with stronger support from the organization than originally received. Once again, a very divisive motion. No one raised a point of order and the meeting ended. The issue of whether to support this "system" is still alive and well publicly and now the organization is split on what the official stance is for the organization. Some feel the original adopted motion still stands, while others feel the defeated reaffirming motion in essence rescinded the original motion.

I appreciate everyone's contributions and knowledge. I trust and concur with Dan's perspective and will advise the organization accordingly. Also if Dan feels this is something that requires clarification in the 2020 edition of RONR, I'm sure he will take a look.

The issue has arisen once again. This has been ongoing for many years (over 10). The organization is divided. Some believe the defeated reaffirming motion in essence overturned (rescinded) the original motion. Others believe the defeated reaffirming motion did nothing and the original motion is still in effect. Unfortunately, I don't believe RONR is clear on a solution. If the reaffirming motion was not in order in the first place, but there was no point of order at the time of the breach, does RONR say the defeated reaffirming motion still stands as does the original motion therefore creating the ambiguity? Therefore a process as you suggest Dan, of, point of order (as this issue is ongoing), ruling, and likely an appeal, would be the way to rectify the situation.

Thank you Josh. I like your explanation. Guest Zen, I agree a rewrite to the RONR sentence that suggests there is ambiguity would be helpful for future clarity on this situation.

lol ... I like your answer also. That's why I asked the question.😵 I'm torn. I lean towards the original still being in effect as it has not been rescinded. Some in the organization feel the defeat of the motion to reaffirm in essence rescinded the original motion. My opinion is ... No it didn't, it is still alive and well. Unless I hear a clearer answer on this forum. My advice will be that in my opinion the motion to reaffirm was not in order and the original motion in still in effect. If someone in the organization wishes to, they can give notice of a motion to rescind the original motion which would require a majority vote to adopt at the next meeting.

I agree Atul. In my opinion the original motion is still in effect. I find RONR unclear because of the statement " and if such a motion to reaffirm failed, it would create an ambiguous situation." Either the reaffirming motion is null and void, or there is an ambiguous situation. I lean towards null and void.

Not sure if a discussion on a motion to reaffirm has been discussed before. I searched it and can't find what I am looking for. RONR 11th ed., states on page 104 l. 24-31 that if a motion to reaffirm failed, it would create an ambiguous situation. If this situation did happen in an organization, is the original motion still in effect and the defeated reaffirming motion null and void? or Is there an ambiguous situation where there are two conflicting motions and the situation needs to be rectified? If the former is true all is good. If the later is true, what process can the organization use to rectify the situation?

Sigh... I was a school board trustee for 11 years and I was also the 1st VP of the Ontario Public School Boards Association, which helped create those guidelines with the Ontario Education Services Corporations. This is not as simple as it seems and has been an ongoing discussion around every board table in the province. I am working with a board presently on their bylaw revision. This is a question that has come up and they are looking to define it clearly. It seems to me that the Board of Trustees is the XYZ District School Board, but through legislation they only have authority over certain aspects with much of the authority given to the only person they hire which is the Director of Education. Thanks for all the comments.

According to the education act in Ontario the only person the elected school board hires is the Director of Education. The elected school board is not allowed to delve into the operations of the corporate body. Interestingly the curriculum across Ontario is standardized so that every student across the province is receiving exactly the same curriculum. It is developed provincially. The Canadian school system most definitely differs from the US. Not sure, but I suspect, the Canadian corporate law does differ from the US law on the definition of a Board, at least as it pertains to school boards. Was hoping to not have to do research into the legal aspects. I likely need a Canadian parliamentarian who has expertise in the legal aspects of corporate law.

My issue is that within the bylaws the term "the Board" is used repeatedly and it is often not clear whether the clause is referring to the Board as the corporation or the elected board.

No they are most definitely not the same thing. To be more clear the corporate name would be XYZ District School Board (XYZDSB). This entity would encompass all employees, students, the elected school board, property. Whatever is specific to that district related to XYZDSB. The elected "Board" is the governing body that oversees student achievement and well-being, deliver of effective and sustainable educational programs, and ensures responsible stewardship of the Board’s resources. One is the corporate name, all encompassing, and the other is the governing body only.

Within the bylaws of a school board, Article I - Name, it is stated that the name of the organization is XYZ School Board, hereafter referred to as the Board. This is the corporate legal name. Within that organization is the elected school board. The bylaws are specific to the elected school board and how they function. How does one differentiate within the bylaws between the Board as the corporate name and the Board as the elected Board?