BabbsJohnson

2 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

If a board member is being questioned by the association’s lawyer, the first thing the board member should do is to obtain their own legal counsel as soon as possible, and start directing their questions to the lawyer, as the situation likely is (or will soon become) more of a legal issue than a parliamentary issue at that point.

 

 

 

So, what happens if  Board member is questioned by the association’s lawyer ...can they just refuse to talk? and then what if they do refuse to talk, but a conversation about them, including accusations and the like, take place among the other board members and the lawyer, while the member is present?

22 minutes ago, reelsman said:

I have no idea where in RONR you are getting all this, Mr. Hunt.

I am almost exclusively referring to violations of the rules of debate, meaning people interrupting each other, or talking twice before someone else has once, or drowning out another member, or the chair telling the assembly “ok last comment” or some such thing,  or violations of decorum... not by-laws or CC&Rs

16 minutes ago, J. J. said:

The chair can rule, but it might not be the correct ruling. 

 I mean ...in an assembly that’s brand new, and using the book fresh, we would start with all of the rules, and then modify them as needed...  wouldn’t necessarily start with a bastardized hollow shell of the rules and then decide whether or not they like certain rules, would they?

In a situation like that, I feel like the group would never experience the full function and benefit of the rules, because they’d never have had them all cohesively complete at any time...

14 minutes ago, J. J. said:

The chair can rule, but it might not be the correct ruling. 

But since the rule in the book would be very specific and definite, why would they even have a say?

15 hours ago, J. J. said:

A custom or usage that conflicts with something adopted yields to it; the custom is said to fall to the ground upon a point of order (p. 19).  It may be part of the general parliamentary law.

 

 Looking at page 19...

>“However if a customarY practice is or becomes in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a point of order citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must be thereafter complied with.”<

 Raising a point of order needs to be ruled on by the chair... but does that mean it that if let’s say a custom is being followed that is in conflict with the rules of order and I raise a point of order and cite the exact rule that’s being broken does that mean that the presiding officer cannot disagree with the fact that this rule exists, and that it takes precedence?

 In other words can they disagree by saying “well I don’t like that rule”

And then the matter has to go to appeal and the assembly then decides if they want to follow that particular rule of order?

 When the book says it falls to the ground does that mean that it falls without the chairs ruling?

I see it follows up to say that if that practice wants to be followed, then a special rule of order must be passed...

Just now, reelsman said:

Okay. Pass my advise along to someone.

My words do not touch their ears, I’m afraid.

1 minute ago, reelsman said:

I rather do not think it is necessary or appropriate to quote "personal comments" in a motion of censure. I would caution you about this sort of thing, lest you find yourself a defendant in a civil suit, whether meritorious or not. Once again, I would like to recommend that you obtain legal counsel before you go wandering off in this direction.

The reason I ask is because I’m expecting someone who does not know parliamentary procedure to motion to censure, and I want to know what is allowed and what is not. I’m not planning to censure anyone.

22 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

Aren't they following the rules for small boards?   I can't remember with all of these threads.  Or do you feel this goes beyond informal discussion?

Yes, small boards.

If we did engage in informal discussion, are the rules of decorum still in effect?

Are accusations made from one board member to another against decorum? 

Also, if a board member finds them self in an unfair, courtroom-like atmosphere, with the association lawyer present and asking them questions, or another board member making accusations, what should one do?

is there anything in RONR regarding the presence of lawyers?

28 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I think this is all correct, and would add that in either case, the chair must provide the reasoning for the ruling.

Unless the motion is actually involving a person directly, comments regarding a person will be out of order in any event because they will not be germane to the pending motion. The remarks might, additionally, be a violation of decorum, depending on their nature.

Now, if a person is actually involved in the motion directly (such as an election or a motion to censure), the situation is somewhat different, but even in such cases I would be inclined to rule at least some of the categories of comments you mention out of order as not germane.

What personal comments could be made in a censure?

If at a board meeting, the president or manager brings up a member as a topic of conversation, and begins to talk about a thing they have done that they feel was improper (or whatever), how does that board member deal with that?

Would that be a point of order situation?

Let's say someone had a complaint, but nothing was told to the board member about it... can an assembly just decide to talk about them, making accusations or questioniing them about whatever (like a cross-examination of sorts?).

Or... another scenario... let's say there is some complaint... does the member need to be given notice of some kind if someone at an upcoming meeting intends to have a discussion about it?

Would they have to move to censure the person first, in order to start such a conversation?

5 hours ago, J. J. said:

A custom or usage that conflicts with something adopted yields to it; the custom is said to fall to the ground upon a point of order (p. 19).  It may be part of the general parliamentary law.

 

Thank you!

6 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

 

Hmm, isn't ammunition that stuff they use in guns?

🙄

 I was looking around in RONR to see if there was a guide on how to rule on points of order,  but I’m wondering if the gist of it comes down to the following:

The point of order is called ...

If the referenced rule exists, and was if fact broken, the chair should rule it as well taken, and perhaps make a comment on how that rule should not be broken

If the rule does not exist or an existing rule was not being broken, then the chair should rule it as not well taken

Am I right in thinking that personal remarks do not have to be an attack or an insult in order to breach decorum, because  personal remarks whether attacks, insults, or other remarks about a person’s nature, appearance, mood, ethnicity, disability, etc, tend to be not germane, and therefore are out of order(?)

6 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Apparently the disconnect here is that the president's announcement did not reflect what was actually agreed to (or not) in executive session. 

So the president's announcement in open session was not correct, but nobody made an effort to correct it at the time.

The minutes were approved without correcting them, but apparently the minutes were an accurate record of the incorrect announcement, and so should not have been corrected.

Which raises a question: If an officer makes statements in a report that are known by some of those present to be incorrect, what is the proper way to bring that fact up?  I think it's clear that amending the minutes is not the way to go.

 

 I think part of the problem is that there is a missing detail about the discussion that stated or rather didn’t state whether or not everyone in the discussion (or a majority) agreed on the thing they were discussing.

It’s an implication,  which leaves the person looking at the minutes with an assumption to make,  knowing whether or not the implication or assumption is correct.

We have a president that has been told for years that RONR was not something that she had to pay attention to, and was not anything official that we as a board had to use, but they, and the board were wrong in being told that (The person telling them & is this, was either misinformed, or had their own motivations for saying these things).

 Meanwhile, over the last almost 10 years, they have designed their own ‘presidential’ role, which definitely does not fit the parameters of how RONR defines the chair’s role.

Customs, as far as I understood, are not supposed to define roles and official behaviors of officers.

 Should the president welcome being given information and charged by the board with learning it, so that she can actually fulfill her real duties as the chairperson as defined by RONR,  or is her style and role that she has defined herself over the years, sort of “grandfathered in” so that she does not have to pay attention to what RONR says she should do?

RONR  are our officially adopted rules in our bylaws, and the person who has been misinforming them/us  like I said, have had their own motivations, like maybe she just personally does not agree with the use of them, or does not like the rules and imposed that personal opinion upon us which was not her right to do).

The person who has been misinforming us, is a hired manager... Not a board member, or a member of the Association. 

 Additional question:

Should the board even have to specifically tell her that she must do this? Should there have to be a motion, or once it’s brought to her attention, and to the attention of the board, that this is actually the way it should be, should it just be automatic, since our parliamentary rules are officially adopted?

 I can’t think of any officer role where the officer gets to define their own version of it, and pick and choose duties, instead of doing the ones outlined in RONR.

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

Well, it sounds like these words, or anything approximating them, may not have actually been said.

I agree that, in the event they were said, ignorance is not a valid defense.

 I gave you pretty much what was written exactly in the minutes so to me there’s no indication that there is even a number of people to make a majority to agree on a thing .

A discussion was had, and one person announced something.

33 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I disagree that this is sufficient for unanimous consent. The procedure for unanimous consent requires the chair to actually request unanimous consent or, at a minimum, to imply such a request by words such as “If there is no objection...” The chair simply making a statement is not a proper request for unanimous consent.

And just a note: We have never used it, never discussed using unanimous consent. I’m not even sure any of the current board members are aware of the option. 

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Were any corrections offered to the minutes when presented for approval, or has that not yet happened?

No. They were signed as correct.

2 minutes ago, J. J. said:

The recording of this is proper in my opinion. 

The minutes should read "The board (or other assembly) eliminated (the committees)," or something similar.

If the chair said something like, "Okay, (these specific committees) are abolished," and no one objected at the time, they were abolished, at least from a procedural standpoint.  According to RONR, the minutes do not have to list the method of voting, nor the count, except in cases where a count has been ordered by the chair, or where the vote was by roll call or ballot. 

There may be legal requirements covering your organizations, but that a legal question. 

 

Even though there was no motion noted, nor even a statement that all were in agreement on the action?

1 hour ago, jstackpo said:

The reasonable argument is that we parliamentarians are not lawyers, for the most part, so we have no business advising on legal matters, such as "Is this an illegal act?"  We should stick to our last and advise on procedure ("how", not "what") only.

Yes, I do understand that, and also that some may not want to reflect on such details, but in the spirit of those who are willing to participate in the of rolling around of ideas, where their logical end might seem to be, I included the information anyway.

On 6/6/2019 at 9:31 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If state law prohibits the discussion of a topic in executive session, it would be unusual for it not to also prescribe the punishment for violating this provision.

There is a related section to the ones that could be violated that does prescribe the punishment.

Of course it takes an individual to take the necessary actions to get that proverbial ball rolling.

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Not in my opinion.

Would you say it was handled such that the supposed action was still valid?

And even though this is not an RONR issue, there is still the detail that it was handled as an unauthorized topic, and so was actually illegal according to state law.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that a piece of business that, in its execution, did in fact break the law, could ever be seen as valid 

37 minutes ago, J. J. said:

 

It definitely should be minuted, e.g. "the assembly discharged the committee," in cases where the action was taken by unanimous consent. 

From the Executive minutes when the "discussion" took place:

"The Board held a general discussion about eliminating the (committees) to encourage more detailed communications with all vendors"

From the minutes of the open session, same night:

"(President's name) announced that the (committees) are being eliminated to encourage more detailed comunications directly with all vendors"

Does that qualify as properly handled? No motion, no vote, no mention of unanimous consent, or even agreement among those present.

6 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

I was trying (in vain, apparently) to turn this thread back to RONR rather than a discussion of how to interpret sunshine laws in various jurisdictions. The OP has been advised repeatedly, as you just did again, to consult an attorney.

And I was not ignoring that advice, it’s just easier said than done.

4 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

What would be the purpose of the experiment?

If it's to prove a point, then how does that benefit anyone?

If it's to change behaviours that we have heard about on various threads, how does this experiment lead to changing it? Unless you have the intention of consulting an attorney and going a court, then the group polices its own behaviour.

 It would simply be to illustrate inconsistency in applying the rules and possibly showing discrimination towards some members, and favoritism towards others.  Ultimately the experiment would be to create ammunition and grounds for removing this person as president.