BabbsJohnson

11 minutes ago, reelsman said:

I think your experiment is intemperate. Over several posts, now, you've been looking for ways to gun down the presiding officer. That's not what parliamentary procedure is for.

Not exactly.

I have observed a specific disregard for the rules, and I would say even a disdain for them,  that has resulted in actual harm to some individuals.  

I want the president who acts as chair, simply to do the job that they’ve been placed in that position to do...  problem is they have been told for years now from someone in authority who should’ve known better, that we didn’t actually have to pay attention to,  or use RONR,  it has created a culture of disregard and contempt for the rules.

In reality, the president’s only role in meetings is to act as the chairperson, and RONR defines the role and duties of the chair.

 I really want is them to fully understand and respect that fact and for them to respect the role they are fulfilling, and to adhere to what their duties are.

If you were to observe our meetings, you would see that everyone in the meeting except for one person typically interrupts each other talks over each other speaks without recognition, as many times as they please, regardless of who has and has not yet spoken,  and one person is just sat waiting with their hand in the air while 2..3...4 people talk, one after another,  & the chair does absolutely nothing to stop it...and in fact participates in it.

So the person patiently waiting, feels like a bit of a fool for trying to follow the rules when nobody else wants to.

It’s extremely discouraging to the point sometimes that this person  experiences extreme despair and hopelessness over. 

Some people have resigned & vowed not to come back while this person is president ...talented people that the board could’ve benefitted from.

Recently I have found out about straight up unethical things being done that have also caused real injury to at least one person.

If I sound salty, or snarky, or like I’m trying to “gun down”  the presiding officer (an extreme thing to refer, to which I don’t agree with...) this is why.

My ultimate goal is for this person to understand the depth of their role and responsibilities, and to either embrace it, or resign.

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I think you still could (within reason, at least), but unless there is some reason to believe the outcome would be different (such as if the facts are slightly different, or if the chair or the members have changed since the last time), I’m not sure what the point would be.

If you were to repeatedly, within the same meeting, raise a Point of Order regarding the same situation, when the assembly has already made clear it disagrees with your interpretation, then I think further Points of Order on that issue (within the same meeting) could be ruled out of order as dilatory.

What if, on the off chance, I try an experiment and interrupt someone else, to see if the Chair rules consistently, and they do not

(like if someone else raises a point of order from my interruption, and the chair rules it well taken?)

Would it be within my rights to asks that the specific inconsistency be recorded as such? Seems that would illustrate a special kind of discrimination.

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

As I recall from previous threads, the OP’s organization is a homeowner’s association (or similar entity).

That is correct.

So...  I may have asked this in another way before but I’m not sure if I got an answer.

 Say I call a point of order for being interrupted and the chair rules it not well taken even though I was interrupted while I had the floor.

 Let’s say I moved to appeal, and the appeal did not over all of the chair’s ruling.

 Does that mean I could not raise further points in order for being interrupted?

10 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Assuming the minutes are accurate and complete in this matter, I agree the committee still exists.

The committee had special privileges that were taken away upon this decision several months ago.  I doubt that anyone will recognize the validity of my claim that the committee still exists,  but whatever deciding they did was not in open session, which in my state makes it illegal that they even tackled the subject there. 

The subject of talking about such a move was not on any of the agendas that day.

 My state requires everything that is discussed and voted upon be on an agenda that is put up for days before hand.  Is a violation of the open meeting act laws in my state for any item of business to be discussed or acted upon if it is not on the agenda.

 If I asserted that the committee still existed and that  The roles and privileges of those on the committee should be restored immediately, would they have to do the processing of rescinding  the original motion that formed the committees in order for the committees to actually go away?

Or could the president just say “hey board members we don’t want that anymore, right?” and just ask them to raise their hands to vote the committees out... I mean would that be a valid vote to rescind even though it was not worded correctly ?

Just now, Josh Martin said:

For starters, did you check whether your bylaws have their own rules concerning discipline or removal? Those rules take precedence over RONR. Maybe you don’t need a trial at all.

The questions concerning open meeting law will have to be directed to an attorney.

Removal of officers can be done at any time by a majority of the board. Removal of directors must be done by the membership. There are no other mentions of discipline past that.

1 minute ago, Josh Martin said:

Nothing in RONR requires anything to be on the agenda or for the assembly to use an agenda at all.

Giving previous notice of a motion to rescind is not required, but it lowers the threshold for adoption.

Again, no rule in RONR requires anything to be on the agenda. The rules concerning previous notice are the same.

What do you mean by “decided?”

As for the state law issues, talk to a lawyer.

In the minutes, there was a comment that a discussion took place in Executive, then a note about the presidebtbannouncingbin open session that a decision was made to get rid of the committees, but no motion nor the vote resulting was noted.

7 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

The chair, acting on her own, cannot decide that the next comment will be the “last comment.” Only the assembly may limit or end debate, and this requires a 2/3 vote.

Yes (except that there is no particular reason the limit in the special rule of order must be greater than twice). Under the small board rules, there is no limit to the number of times members may speak on a debatable question (except for an Appeal), unless the board adopts a special rule of order providing otherwise. This requires a 2/3 vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership (of the board). The board may also limit or end debate in a particular case by a 2/3 vote.

The board is also free, if it wishes, to determine that this aspect of the small board rules is not suitable for its purposes and that the default rule in RONR is controlling.

My understanding is that the assembly in question is a small board.

The assembly may use the motion to Limit Debate or Extend Limits of Debate, by a 2/3 vote or unanimous consent, to permit a member to speak after the member has exhausted their times to speak in debate. The assembly is free to use its discretion in when to do so.

 And what to do if the chair just shows favoritism amongst some,  allowing them additional comments & letting it slide at Cetera while others are held to the number of times they’ve spoken.

 Would that be another reason for another point of order to be called ?

 If the rules were being applied in consistently by the chair?

5 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

 

But there is nothing to support this idea in RONR. Under RONR, the entire membership can be in one place (such as a BBQ or other social event) and that does not, by itself, constitute a meeting.

There are exceptions in the Open Meeting Act where I live, that states social functions, seminars, etc where board issues are not being discussed or deliberated upon are ok, and not a board meeting.

Committees discuss issues that are board jurisdiction.

When a motion to rescind occurs, does the item in question have to be on the agenda?

if so, does that still apply if the board is rescinding the motion to appoint a committee that serves “at the pleasure of the board”, or since the thing in question has that status, can it be rescinded at any time, regardless of what is it is not on the agenda?

Second part of that question:

if the board improperly handled rescinding a motion, and in fact did not rescind, did not even put forth a motion to rescind, but just “decided” after a discussion that the committee was no more, and the committee still exists, does that need to be on the agenda in order to discuss (and) does anything change about that situation if the discussion in question was actually handled illegally, meaning when it was had, in fact broke state law?

(it was an unauthorized topic, which made the discussion illegal and also not on any agenda)

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

1. The presiding officer can make any claim he/she wants in response to a Point Of Order. It is the assembly's discretion to interpose an Appeal if the explanation seems insufficient.

2. The only time a chairman could refuse is if the same situation has occurred in the past and the chairman has rendered a ruling and no Appeal has reversed his decision. This is the reason why these things should be recorded in the minutes. The member interposing an Appeal does have a right to only one single speech after the motion has been declared by the chairman unless the Appeal is undebatable, "if it (a) relates to indecorum or a transgression of the rules of speaking; (b) relates to the priority of business; or (c) is made when an undebatable question is immediately pending or involved in the appeal." RONR 11th edition page 257. Again, no. The Point Of Order itself is not debatable.

>>Ok, so if let’s say, I get inturrupted by the Chair during my speech, and so call point of order, and explain why I’m raising it, and she reacts like she doesn’t know what to do next, 1) do I have to explain what she’s supposed to do? And 2) what if she rules “not well taken” because she just wants me to stop talking... let’s say the appeal does not fly... does that mean I cannot call a Point of order for being inturrupted again, since she ruled as she did, and the appeal did not overturn her ruling?

3. No. Outbursts such as these are a breach of decorum and it is the responsibility of the chairman to suppress them.

>>So, if the Chair does not suppress them, but instead let’s them speak to illustrate how “stupid” or a “waste of time” it is, then asks for the assembly to vote on letting me continue speaking or not instead of ruling on the point? (I could honestly see this happening) 

X. If the chair rendered a ruling and regardless whether an Appeal followed, standard procedure is for the Point Of Order or both of these items to be recorded in the minutes, no request is needed. If these events are not being recorded then at the next meeting when the minutes are being approved you should suggest an amendment to include them.

>>The secretary-assistant is not at all used to recording a point of order. Is there an example of how they should be recorded in the minutes in RONR?

I would urge you to get a copy of this book. Finding many of the answers will be somewhat quicker with the hardcopy in hand. Besides, it is something you can take to the meeting with you.

>>I have a copy, just not sure where to look for some of this stuff...

also, if a point of order is called, and I need time to look up the exact wording of the rule, how is that handled?

1. If the Chair becomes irate hearing someone call points of order, like if they are not used to it, or have not made it their business to know how to respond, or doesn't want to rule on points of order, can they claim it is merely someone being disruptive, even if the points are being called for actual rules being broken?

2. If the Chair refuses to rule, and a board member raises an appeal, do they have time to explain why the appeal is necessary before a second is needed. or would that explaination be when they explain the point of order? In case the rest of the board is not familar with the rules being broken?

3. Is it possible for the other members to just say things like "this is stupid" or "this is a waste of time" and other such things when points of order are raised?

If the Chair fails to rule that a rule is in fact being broken, and an appeal is not successful, can something else be done, perhaps a request that the action be added to the minutes?

10 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Your society adopts RONR and they just disregard the rule? Or have they adopted a special rule of order that enacts a different rule?

 

They disregard the rule because they do not care about the rules.

No special rule has been adopted.

If a limit on speaking x number of times were adopted, I’d bet money that some people would be constantly saying “just one last thing” over the limit a lot of the time, and that the rule would be inconsistently emforced, allowing some to keep slipping inna last comment, while others would be told they’d used up their turns.

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

A committee is whatever size the appointing body wishes it to have.

It’s my understanding that committees must always be less than a quorum of the board, otherwise it’s a board meeting.

The only exception I’ve seen is outlined in our By-Laws, and they specify that an executive committee of the board shall be no less than 7 directors (which is the size of our whole board).

I imagine this was done so no one director could be intentionally excluded.

On 6/24/2019 at 6:27 AM, Josh Martin said:

Since you have already ruled out comments which are indecorous or not germane, the only other reason I can think of is if the member has exceeded the time limits for speaking, or has already spoken the maximum number of times on a motion.

There are times when she will say “ok...last comment” when someone has been waiting to speak.

...even though we do not follow the 2 times a day rule for how many times one can speak (is it on a main motion, or?)

Typicslly, if a group does not follow the max of 2 times per day, per motion rule, (such as in small boards) does that mean there is no limit to the number of times one can speak, unless a special rule of order is enacted to impose a limit greater than twice?

59 minutes ago, J. J. said:

A point of order may be raised to demand that a rule be enforced.  While that might, incidentally, "show the others just how many rules and how often, are being broken, and also to show that a chair is grossly negligent in their duties of knowing, implementing and enforcing the rules of order," the purpose is to enforce the rules. 

Yes, I realize that the purpose is to enforce the rules.

Im saying they almost never get properly enforced, and I’ve had a lot of stress over it...frankly I’m very tired of it, and I find it extremely upsettiing thatvthe person who acts as Chair has been so neglectful, that it has cause actual, real damage to individuals, andvtonthe functionslity of the board I serve on.

I’m venting.

Thank you for your answer, I know it’s correct...I just have to figure out how to deal with this.

Is it in order to call points of order, partially to show the others just how many rules and how often, are being broken, and also to show that a chair is grossly negligent in their duties of knowing, implementing and enforcing the rules of order?

i have a situation where a person has been a president for nearly ten years, but has made up their own rules and mocks and ridicules RONR.

Unfortunately, this person is influencing the other board members who are very green and following her lead, and do not know that rules are even being broken, but I’m honestly quite tired of it.

Would it be out of order to call points of order on every (or many) violations that are bound to happen,  of decorum and debate limits?

So...what of the case where the chair attempts to limit or stop debate, and a point of order is called...would the defense be that onlybthe board can move to the previous question, and that no one member, including the chair, may stop or limit debate?

21 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Another Question For The Attorney

What if the state law is restricting the board's discretion but not any committee? Can the society appoint a special trial committee that would then meet in executive session and conduct the trial this way?

The committee would have to be less than a quorum, correct?

also: should both partie (complainant and alleged offender) be excluded from being on such a committee?

If state laws restrict what can be done in executive session, and if such laws do not allow for a trial, how can a society proceed with discipline?

Must they design a process that takes place without a quorum if the board, or mustvtgey design a process that can take place in open session?

5 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

I agree that the chair cannot impose limits. However, if there is no one willing to speak on one side of the question, that's usually a very good sign that the assembly is ready to vote and decide on the question. 

I would assume that someone would then call for the question, perhaps after a last call for discussion?

Thank you, kind people.

Thank you 

2 hours ago, J. J. said:

There is suppose to be an alternation between pro and con positions.  The chair could be doing that. 

But let’s say there is no one who wishes to, or is ready to speak when an opposing view is called for... can the Chair impose any limits or prohibitions on those who wish to speak next? 

 I would think they would have to stop debate for all speakers and ask for a vote to call the question, and are not able to impose limits on any one speaker, or speakers, based on their possible debate content.

5 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I think you already know the answer to this. 

I’d like to think it is “no”, but I wanted to make sure I was asking the right question.

I asked a similar question prior to this, but included a specific reason (possible redundancy of the speaker’s debate  content).

I’m backing up a step so I get a more generalized answer if there is one, or if there was a specific thing in RONR to refer to if the Chair tries to limit or prohibit speech based on what they personally think should or should not be heard.