BabbsJohnson

was under the impression that someone like a hired vendor such as a manager, could only crrtain things if directed to do so by the board.

I guess I’d have to go back and read to know for sure.

(deleted: redundancy)

I guess... never? And with that logic, it would never override state law either, correct ?

When you say “expulsion”, do you mean the board itself can vote a board member out by a two-thirds vote, even if the by-laws specify a specific (and different) requirement for removing a board member from being a “board member”? And furthermore...if RONR overrides the By-Laws, can they do such a thing without a trial?

Singling one member out and making a special rule for them that applies to something as important as communication with their board member peers, seems like a kind of discrimination to me. As far as the bylaws are concerned, because I have read through them several times, and I can’t find anything in RONR that would allow this, it seems like that power cannot be created, to allow to make a special rule for just one member.

State laws, I have been told, override anything in RONR. So for instance.,, if a state law says that a board is only authorized to discuss, let’s say, five specific and well-defined topics, and is otherwise violating the law if they discussed anything else, then if “anything else” was discussed, it would be in violation of the law, and as far as the State is concerned is not considered protected or confidential information, since it does not fit within the confines of the specifically authorized topics. But of course I agree about the legal vs parliamentary thing.

We use small board rules, so she speak in debate, as well as gives long speeches before anyone else can talk, about how she feels about something, and also votes.

A special rule has been imposed on me that says all communication that I want to have with other board members, has to include her, if it’s email, which is how many communicate these days. I have no idea if this rule applies to other members. i believe this is her way of controlling communication, as she can then privately tell the others not to respond, before any of them do. Her goal, I think, is for me to have zero access to, and zero communication with, the other board members, outside of meetings, to the net effect of me having zero allies.

If a person is accused of something by another board member, or by a manager, or by an invited guest, during Executive Session, do they have the right to speak of it freely, since they were the one accused of some wrong? Also: what if the accusation was untrue, and there was proof of this? Also: if a person shares some personal detail about themselves in some way during Executive Session, and it has nothing to do with board jurisdiction, (nor an authorized executive session topic, as far as local laws go), and someone else makes an indecourous comment about that person in response, (and it is not called out by the Chair, and the Chair, in fact, then joins in and makes several indecorous remarks about that person as well), is the person who the remarks were made about required to keep that exchange a secret, since it was in Executive Session?

Guest LRB, what your local “sunshine” or open meeting laws say about Executive Session and what is considered “confidential” information might be of importance as well. If a typically open meeting topic is discussed in Executive Session, it might not be considered that which is required to be kept confidential. (That is not really about parliamentary procedure though, but what your state or local laws say). Adding: It may really depend on what they spoke about. Did they expose someone’s personal contact or address information, for example? Someone’s financial information? Details about a pending contract? Details about a pending lawsuit? Details about leins, foreclosures, or payment plans? This is the kind of information that many states list for HOA boards, for example, as what must be kept confidential that is spoken about in executive session. Again... this has not much to do, if anything, with parliamentary rules, but with your local, or state laws. Not all boards adhere to their local laws. Activity that violates the law, and this is pure speculation, I’d guess (as a non-lawyer type person) would not be protected, or expected to be kept confidential. (Might want to ask at a legal advice forum)

When you say “expulsion”, that must be limited by what the by-laws say, correct? If the by-laws, for instance, say nothing of “expulsion from the membership” as an option, and that the only way to “expel” someone (let’s say a board member from an HOA board) is to use the guidelines to remove them by a vote of the membership (the homeowners) then that is the only “expulsion” possible, correct?

In presenting a matter to an assembly, is it ever available to the presenter for them to ask to hear from the assembly first, before the Chair?

No Bylaws mention on discipline. Removing a board member or the whole board by the vote of the membership is the only thing mentioned. RONR is our adopted Parliamentary Rules.

Is the only way to get a trial going is through a motion? Can anyone elaborate on how, in an HOA membership and board, what role does the membership play in: 1. Getting the trial initiated 2. The trial itself Also: does a trial always require actions that happen outside of a meeting? Some things happened at a recent meeting I was not at. Several actions were taken against me, I believe in retaliation.

If the By-Laws do not give allowances for any kind of in-meeting discipline, or anything outside of what seems to be the standard way that HOA boards can remove a director, woudn't talking about a member at all, if the remarks were not part of a motion to censure, be considered "personal remarks" and not be allowed?

The by-laws are silent regarding discipline, outside of guidelines for removing a board member, or the entire board, both which would require a vote of the membership.

Can a board subject a member to questioning by the association lawyer or to a discussion during a meeting regarding that member as if they were on trial, only without moving for a trial? Can the board act as if a trial is happening and decide on some kind of disciplinary action without notifying the member the way one would be notified if the membership moved to behind a trial? Can you do this in the absence of the member? Put that member on the agenda and discuss them while they are not there?

It is not a large corporation. It is an HOA.

Yes, it took place during a meeting, and the president fully participated in the conversation, instead of stopping it.

To me, it seems like an overreaction to me simply telling the manager I didn’t appreciate her asking the lawyer in front of everyone if a condition I disclosed I had (cptsd), as part of an apology for breaking down in tears at a recent meeting, could get me removed from the board, (he said yes, if they could prove I was unfit to serve) then went on to continue a casual conversation with the president and the rest of the board about my mental health, in what turned out to be highly probable was an illegal meeting.. It was extremely improper, and highly humiliating, and offensive to me. Nothing in our bylaws says anything about the board being able to make those kinds of rules about board members, or a single board member.

So... would it have to be an officially adopted rule, meaning through a motion at a meeting? Something that would be in the minutes?

I am expecting a "This isn't covered by RONR" response from someone, but all this detail leads to a valid question at the end. I supposed if you don't' want to know the details, the TL;DR for this would be: Can a board implement disciplinary measures that are not offered by RONR or the By-Laws? Meaning, can they make up disciplinary rules or methods either for the entire board and/or individual board members? I received a letter from the Association lawyer, that if I wish to email management, or any other board member, that I have to copy the president as well. I thought that censure, removal from officer positions, removal from committees (and in extreme cases, a recall) was the only means of discipline we have available, if RONR is adopted, and by-laws are silent. There is nothing in our by-laws that states anything about discipline, yet both the (unknown contents of the) conversation that prompted the letter, and the letter itself, as well as what the letter asks of me, seems like disciplinary action that is beyond their means to take. It at least seems like intimidation. There is no reason the president couldn't have emailed me, or brought this up as a censure, or something like that. A legal letter costs money. It had to get approved.

The chair was participating in the conversation as well., and also saying insensitive things. i was also a bit shocked as it was happening.

Not long ago, while in a meeting, a manager made an extremely rude, humiliating and embarrassing comment which damaged my image in front of my peers.and also demonstrated a callous disregard for a crippling disability, The President did not call her to order, but instead joined in the conversation. Later, I told the manager I thought she was mean, tactless, and inappropriate, and that I’d never forget that she did that, which I’m sure was a breach of decorum. Are there “levels” to breaches of decorum? Are some worse than others?