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.

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

It depends. How was the current parliamentary authority adopted to begin with?

 

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

2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Yes, mam. I started frequenting the place one day after the trial and the place was abuzz with all the details.

Interesting. Do you know how long the entire process took?

Did you witness any of the proceedings?

4 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Real life example.

Two individuals are playing speed chess at the local chess club on the 9th floor. Another member wants to use the clock. The participants politely refuse. The requesting individual grabs the clock and throws it out the open window.

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?

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

I think that the list of eleven items on pages 449-450 is exceedingly reasonable and I would not want to get rid of any of them.

 

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?

1 minute ago, Joshua Katz said:

If no law or rule of your organization prevents the membership from meeting in executive session, then the membership may meet in executive session, yes. And, if the organization follows RONR and does not have its own disciplinary procedure, then at certain times it is obligated to do so (or, rather, it's obligated to do so in order to do certain things). 

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

40 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

We've been over this ground before. That may be, but it doesn't mean your board can take on powers not granted to it in the bylaws. A special rule of order will not be sufficient for that purpose. (Also, you might want to consult an attorney to ensure that your state law applies to executive sessions of the membership as well as of the board.)

1 minute ago, Joshua Katz said:

Well, one would be disciplinary procedures according to RONR.

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.

9 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

The trial process described in RONR is carried out by the membership. The board could not, by means of a special rule of order adopted by the board, take the disciplinary power onto itself and away from the membership; that would need to be done by a bylaw.

There is no requirement that any process ever include staff, unless one appears in your bylaws. But the ability to design a "grievance process" in the first place, depending on what you mean by that, could be limited.

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?

3 minutes ago, J. J. said:

From a procedural point, no.  One supersedes another. 

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

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Agreed.  The problem with the chart that Nosey linked to is that it has the parliamentary authority and special rules of order at the same level.  With RONR, at least, that is not correct.  Special rules or order trump the rules in the parliamentary authority.

A problem with both the link posted by Nosey and the one posted by J.J. is that they both omit the organization's constitution. The  constitution trumps the bylaws in organizations that have both.

So, yes, it's a bit more complicated than that, but both charts are a good (but incomplete) guide.

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?

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

If such a limitation exists, it would be found in applicable law, not in RONR.

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

48 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

In the event that a formal trial is held under Ch. XX of RONR, a member has a right to be informed of the charges against them. Short of that, however, no, a member has no right to be informed of complaints.

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).

On 6/28/2019 at 6:11 PM, J. J. said:

My first question is, if this is a board meeting, are the comments about a member of the board?   If this is about a member of the organization that is not a member of the board, it would not be a violation of decorum for a board member to make these type of comments.  It might not be germane.

Under small board rules, it would be acceptable to consider a response to a member's conduct without a motion pending.  It would also be acceptable to refer the question of a response of the member's conduct to a committee of the whole.

I'm using the word "conduct" specifically, because it could refer to commendable conduct.  

I

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?

36 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

A motion to follow the rules is pointless and should be ruled frivolous. 

I believe I suggested earlier in this or another thread that your course of action if unlawful discussion begins, is to object by raising a point of order, and ensuring that your objection shows up in the minutes.  Even if the unlawful discussion continues, you should personally be free of any potential trouble, should the board end up disciplined for that.  That is why it is essential to see that your obection is recorded.

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.

1 hour ago, Atul Kapur said:

Do you remember the famous Abbott and Costello routine, "Who's on First?"?

These sound like questions you should ask an attorney.

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

10 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

You have told us before that open meeting legislation applies to your organization and that it requires an agenda be published in advance. The rules in RONR are superseded by such legislation.

 

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?

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Pineapple is an abomination, but anchovies are classic.

Oh no!

But pineapple is a

delight on pizza 🍍

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

So far as RONR is concerned, the member is free to refuse to answer the questions. The conversation about them “including accusations and the like” is certainly out of order if no relevant motion is pending, and I think there are limits even if such a motion is pending.

I must stress again, however, in the strongest possible terms, that if you expect to be questioned by the association’s lawyer, you really need to present these questions to your own legal counsel, not to strangers on the internet.

I think I will be feeling quite ill that day, since I can not afford a lawyer.

i must say I already do 😞