BabbsJohnson

Ok, thank you.

I was wondering what Parliamentarians might see as what the difference is in the above (attack vs remark), as far as RONR goes, and when people say “personal attack” in regards to a thing not permitted in meetings, are we referencing the classic ad hominem fallacy (various kinds could qualify) “against the man” (not the argument)?

Thank you. I have written a bit of a short bit on the subject, possibly a blog entry-to-be, still cleaning it up a bit. I may put it here if anyone would be willing to give me their take, and possibly tell me if they see I’m off-base with anything.

Even though you are not a member, It's useful just the same. I assume also that the President must be informaed as the will of the board, and not make any assumptions on their own and what that might be, in any given situation. Example: Powers of the President cannot be interpretated as anything but "subject to the control of the board", meaning there are not powers that exist for that role that are independant of the board's collective power. A couple of examples: The president cannot veto (and block) something the board demonstrates it's will to move forward on. A president cannot define it's own powers that are independant of the board, unless the By-Laws deemed it so in some way, like saying something like "The President has the ability to define the powers of the role of president, or other officers, as they see fit, without the support of a majority of the board." Thos are both kind of major, and powers like that would have to be specifically defined in the By-Laws, correct?

This entry in the By-Laws I am working with is worded in a way I'm not sure how to interpret... When it says "supervise, direct, and control all of the business and affairs of the Association and the officers thereof" I'm confused about the last bit: "and the officers thereof" Does this mean (subject to the control of the Board) that the President supervises, directs and controls "all the business and affairs" of the officers? I realize this is not RONR, just looking for input I guess. When I say "working with" I mean trying to explain them to someone else.

Thank you J.J. I agree it is very complex.

Actually I found something online.... still a bit confusing, but I think it's all that is offeref by RONR anyway, so (this is a difficult topic!)

I am wondering-is there is a list of steps that is easy to read and convey to others that describes the progression of discipline? I'm attempting to write a process and I'd like it to reflect what RONR describes, since I believe it would be fair, without having to refer the people I am dealing with to RONR, since they will likely be highly resistent to cracking open the book. Also wondering if anyone would be willing to look at my cobbled together discipline-progression list, and give criticism or whatever applies.

This is all very clarifying. Thank you all for your time today.

Noted... thank you

Just to clarify: The question I meant was... is there such a thing as being "substantially compliant" in using Robert's Rules at all. If a board member says to the assembly: "Robert's Rules are our adopted Parliamentary Rules, since the By-Laws name it" and the response they get is: "We use Robert's Rules enough to be substantially compliant with that requirement" and the board member says: "Yes, but what about decorum, the limits of debate, and Points of Order when they are needed?" and the assembly says: "Limits of debate? Decorum... why what do you mean?" the boar dmember says: "Like being able to speak without being inturrupted, talked over, or directly responded to... or pesonal attacks for instance..." and the assembly says: "Personal attacks? Who gets to decide what that is? It's too subjective!" and the board member says: "What about Points of Order?" and the assembly says: "What is that for?" and the board member says: "It's for when the rules of Decorum are broken, or the limits of debate are violated" and the assembly says: "I think we do just fine. We are using enough Robert's Rules! Doesn't it look like we are using Robert's Rules?" and the board member says: "We are using the voting parts only." and the assembly says: "We are using enough to be substantially compliant. That's all we have to do."

Thanks

Does this require a second, and is it debateable?

Is there any chance you can add a "like" or "favorite" or "add to reading list" button on each post and reply? It would be very helpful for finding items to refrence later.

Yes, I realized that might be an issue after I got cold feet and deleted some of the subjects I was posting about. I will refrain from making such edits in the future.

Sorry, I will refrain from that in the future.

Yes, it’s an HOA board. I see you point, about the battle/victory and the possible cost, and am still trying to figure out if it’s worth it. I fear retaliation of some kind if I push the issue. Thank you for the feedback. I think it’s as complete an answer I can hope for to think about & try to figure out what I want to do.

This is a difficult question, and a difficult and complex situation... (content removed since this is unlikely to be a generally applicable situation) I did get some feedback I am grateful for.

Thank you, gentlemen

I am unfamiliar with the possible variables among by-laws and how parliamentary Law/rules are named or not named, so I guess I was just creating a hypothetical in case it applied in the real world.

That’s interesting. I had no idea there was a “general” category.

I was looking for clarification. When we talk about “Adopting” RONR... if the By-laws names RONR, then that society has already adopted RONR If the By-laws are silent, or give an option besides RONR, then it would be the board adopting RONR, if it chose to?

Thank you for the input, gentlemen

Yes, I understand that there is nothing stated in RONR about what I said about what I “heard”, it was an interpretation that sounded like it had merit, and I was looking for views on whether that was a reasonable argument.

I’ve heard the idea that it’s not fair in a small assembly to require a second because of the high percentage it can represent (for instance, in an assembly of 7, a requirement for two people to get the motion into discussion is over 28%, whereas in an assembly of 50, its only 4%, and the requirement for getting a motion into discussion in a larger assembly does not increase. In a small group of seven that only has a quorum of four people on a night when people are absent, two people represents a requirement for 50% of the assembly-just to get it into discusssion, which seems a grossly unfair requirement. Anyone have thoughts, clarification or expansion on this?