BabbsJohnson

Pretty much the questioin in the title. Can the President, or Management, or the Board, design any kind of process of "conflict resolution" or discipline, that is not already defined in the by-laws, or in RONR?

If a Board requests a member to resign, is that done with an ordinary motion? Same question for requesting a director take a leave of abscence.

Named in the By-Laws as what shall govern our corporate processes.

Interesting. Do you know how long the entire process took? Did you witness any of the proceedings?

Real life example? As in it really happened?

If a board does not wish to invest in hiring a parliamentarian, can anyone who feels they can navigate the material hold study sessions for the board they are a member of?

If a new chairman was elected, and knew nothing of RONR, but had just gotten the book, would you say studying those 11 duties were the first thing they ought to do?

Can any of you give some examples of why a trial might be needed, in response to what kind fo scenarios?

The duties and role of the chair as defined in RONR-are they negotiable? I believe I have been told they can be modified with a special rule or order, is that the case? Are there any duties of the chair that you, as parliamentarians, would say are important enough to never "get rid of"? Can the duties of the chair ever be expanded, say to resemble more of a monarch or leader, instead of a manager of communication and keeper of order?

Thank you... this will certainly be a new thing to study.

So... if the by-laws are silent on the matter of executive sessions of the membership (not of the board) , and there is nothing else to legally hinder that kind of meeting, it is allowable?

I do not beleive I've ever seen refrence anywhere to executive sessions of the membership.

Our membership is not well-versed in RONR, and because our state law only allows for a very restricted list of topics that can be discussed in Executive Session, it seems the trial process, as it is described in needing to be confined to executive session, is not available to us.

If a board is unable to use the trial process as it is desribed in RONR, could they modify it to make it useable, with a special rule of order? Also: if a board decided to say, design a process to handle grivances among board members, could they do so and not neccesarily include management in the process? Like could it be handled 100% by the board, assigned committees in needed, etc... If that was the will of the board?

So could a board make a special rule of order that said they were going to suspend the entire set of parliamentary rules?

Thank you, I had not seen that one. i will forward it to the source of the one I posted, in case they want to make adjustments. Is it fair to say that from a legal standpoint, the chart I posted is correct in that special rules and parliamentary rules are on the same “layer” as each other, regardless of how they are ordered within that layer?

If your state has laws that govern meetings of deliberative assemblies like HOA boards, that is where you may find such info. In some places they are called “sunshine” laws and/or “open meeting” laws. In other discussions on this forum, it has been noted that if there are state laws that define or limit what can be done in executive sessions, those trump what RONR might say about executive session. Here is a graphic that shows a hierarchy of where parliamentary rules fit in to statutes and governing documents, etc: https://www.lawoforderblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2019/03/TheLawOfOrder_LawsBylawsRobertsRules_2019_v5_PRINT.pdf

So, let’s say the president and manager are planning not a trial, but to get a certain board member into a meeting for the purpose of cornering him, and making accusations during the meeting, and they plans to have the association attorney treat then like this person is on trial, but with no notice, no chance for that person to prepare their “defense” because no one will tell him what is happening (he has asked)... and that they plan to do this in such a way that violates state open meeting laws (again...this will be the third time they do this to this person since March).

The comments would be about another board member. The board member who might be being accused (it is yet unknown, but highly likely) of an unknown thing, has not been notified of any issues prior to the upcoming meeting, regarding conduct of any kind or breaking of rules, etc. They are expecting to be ambushed once the meeting starts by the association president, who she had complaints about previously, but now suspects this is retaliation for speaking up. The board did not request or authorize the association attorney to be there, be he will be there, apparently. At the former meetings when she spoke up about her complaints, the attorney was there as well, and acted as if he was defending the association president personally. If some accusation or complaint has been made against the board member who is now scared of going to the meeting and being ambushed, and was the one who had prior complaints about the president, don’t they have a right to know what the complaint is, or what they are being accused of?

Does anything change if the unlawful discussion is about me? Would it not be ok for me to just walk in, and hand a simple statement to the manager and president that says I’m only willing to discuss authorized topics as per law # (etc) during Executive Session? Trally trying to avoid having to verbalize this.

Actually I think I figured out a tidy solution that doesn’t dip into RONR or meeting law considerations.

If a board member suspects that a discussion held in Executive Session will be violating state law, can the board member make a motion before discussion gets started that intends to limit discussion to only that which is allowable by law, so that the board member is not put in a position of conflict once a discussion is underway? Also: If such a discussion occurs, or begins to occur, does the board member have the option of recusing him or herself from the meeting, citing that they do not wish to participate in discussions that seem to be violating state law?

Once a meeting begins, under what circumstances can one make a motion? Does the ability to make a motion dependi on what is on the agenda? Can a motion be made about the meeting contents before the meeting begins?

Oh no! But pineapple is a delight on pizza 🍍

I think I will be feeling quite ill that day, since I can not afford a lawyer. i must say I already do 😞