BabbsJohnson

14 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Yes.

Edited to add: See page 43 of RONR for more. 

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)?

35 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Your bylaw specifically says that the President is subject to the board, not vice-versa, so I agree.

I agree. In addition, the board could not expand upon the powers granted in the bylaws to the President, so certainly the President cannot, either. 

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.

37 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

I take this to mean that the president is the spokesperson for the board and makes sure the committees and officers understand what the board wants and answers any questions about those directives. But this is just a guess. Since I am not a member of this society then my opinion is not worth very much. Your society will have to decide for itself what this really means.

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.

27 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I will first note that Robert's Rules of Order In Brief has very little on disciplinary action, generally referring the reader to RONR.  Due to the complexity of disciplinary action, this is understandable. 

Robert's Rules for Dummies does give a great deal of explanation.  As to learning the procure, I would suggest that.

Secondly, I will say that disciplinary procedure is exceptionally complex.  This is one of the things where I advise you to hire a parliamentarian that is familiar with the process. 

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.

13 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Two things:

First, it is easier to get an organization to follow the rules of parliamentary procedure by pointing out their benefits than by insistence that "we must." This is because, short of pushing enough to go to court, the rules are not enforceable upon an assembly that doesn't wish, as a general matter, to follow them. So the better idea is to persuade.

Second, if you wish to raise an issue, I think it is better to raise it in the concrete than the abstract. Don't engage in conversations at a meeting about whether or not you're using RONR. Instead, if someone gets cut off in debate, raise a point of order at that point (i.e. rather than discussing the notion of a point of order or rule of decorum shorn of context). If the chair rules against you and is upheld on appeal, that's part of how RONR works, too. But it is easier to persuade when someone is interrupting Bob (at least, Bob is likely to agree) than if you try to have a free-wheeling conversation about cutting people off - which, by the way, would likely be out of order anyway, which makes it hard to persuade people to follow the rules. 

Noted... thank you

On 3/7/2019 at 2:58 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, this is something I said in an earlier thread:

"If and when a point of order is raised concerning the effectiveness of the one day late notice given for the proposed bylaw amendment, S. Nelson's organization's assembly will have to decide for itself whether or not there has been what amounts to substantial compliance with its rule, and if so, whether or not such compliance is sufficient to permit its consideration and adoption of the proposed amendment.

The assembly's decision will be final unless, of course, the amendment is declared to be adopted and someone feels that his ox has been gored to such an extent that he is willing to sue, in which event the question may ultimately be decided by a court. The court, of course, will be looking at applicable contract law, not parliamentary law, to reach its decision."

But since I'm just a dumb lawyer who don't know nothing about parliamentary law, pay me no mind.  🙂

 

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."

On 4/28/2019 at 7:50 AM, Chris Harrison said:

I can't speak to whether the forum can be modified to do what you are asking.  However,  two ideas come to mind.

1) Create a document listing the title names and link to the URLs of the threads you want to be able to reference later.  Or,

2) Depending on the browser you use (I use Firefox) you can probably create a folder for forum topics you want to be able to reference later and "bookmark" (or "favorite") whatever you are interested in.

Thanks

On 8/4/2015 at 8:16 AM, George Mervosh said:

 

Can he move to strike censure and insert commend? 

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. 

On 2/28/2019 at 7:49 PM, Joshua Katz said:

I would ask, as a courtesy, that you refrain from editing the entirety of a message I have replied to. In general, we ask people to indicate the edits made when editing a post more than a few moments later.

Sorry, I will refrain from that in the future.

53 minutes ago, Chris Harrison said:

I know from personal experience that pain, anxiety, and depression can be made far worse by stress and I can tell you get more than a little stressed by this whole thing.  You may need to ask yourself if assuming you are successful in getting the Board reined in would it be a Pyrrhic victory (you win the battle/war but to the detriment of your health and sanity).

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

9 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I am not sure what is meant by “or give an option besides RONR.” Bylaws generally provide a single parliamentary authority and do not provide “options.” If the bylaws specify some authority other than RONR, that is the society’s parliamentary authority, and it may only be changed by amending the bylaws.

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?