BabbsJohnson

Are there any reasons that the Chair can cite for telling a person they cannot speak in debate?

Can the Chair impose limits or prohibitions on a specific speaker or speakers, based on the chairs own opinion of what the speaker has to say?

(For these questions, let’s assume the speaker’s remarks are germane, and do not contain violations of decorum).

Let’s say someone just spoke...and then next person is recognized...

does the chair have the right to ask that next speaker::

“Do you have anything different to say than the last person?”

...and then refuse to allow that person to talk if they say they do not have a different thing to say?

Can they disallow debate from a board member if they do not wish to hear a similar argument?

44 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

No.  As I said, that is what an appeal is for. The chair gets to, first, explain why he/she made the ruling.

What if they do not explain, and just say "point not well taken" and nothing more?

Are you saying if I say "Appeal!" (and I'm assuming that needs a second) that is when the Chair gets to explain?

1 hour ago, jstackpo said:

Sure, that is what "Appeal" is for.  See p.255 for the next steps.

So, jsut to clarify why the point was not well taken, before an appeal, is it permissible to make a request for information to the chair?

What is to be done when a chairperson nor the assembly do not know a rule is being broken, and the chair does not know how to handle a point of order?

if they rule “not well taken” is it in order to request information about the ruling?

to ask perhaps if the chair rules against the point because he/she disagrees that a known rule is being broken, or if he/she disagrees there is a  rule that should be followed at all?

3 hours ago, reelsman said:

I strongly agree with Messrs. Honemann and Martin. As Mr. Honemann is getting at, the words insert a personal note into the debate. As Mr. Martin points out, the words are, in effect, a characterization of the person as untrustworthy.

So would the answer be to just present the evidence and let the discussion naturally explore/expose the territory of the lies and lawbreaking?

Perhaps a motion to censure, or for the board to commit to not allow further law-breaking to take place?

It's not the same as saying "Do not trust this person" or "They are not trustworthy"...

?

Added:

The people in question have been lying to the board at large, as well as individual board members, and led the entire board into breaking state law.

In a small board where the adjusted rules for a small assembly are being used (7 people), who recognizes the chair to speak?

If the chair recognizes everyone else, what stops them from talking whenever they want to, in between other speakers, and making inappropriate comments on the discussion of other members?

Inappropriate meanging it's not their turn to speak, they speak more then once before others speak twice, and try specifically to say things that will invalidate what the last person said, or perhaps they rebutt everything a single member says in order to try to dampen any influce the debate may have.

Is it always a point of order that is needed, in such situations?

If this kind of thing happens over and over is a point of order recommended every time?

32 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

No, that is not correct because the rule is a rule of order an can be suspended by a two thirds vote.

Edited to add:  The rule could, in theory, remain in effect permanently, but that may not be the case because it can be suspended by a two thirds vote to permit a motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted... including the amendment or  rescission of the rule itself.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. 

11 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I think the only question is if the board to make this rule, not that there is a right for any member to specific motion.

An assembly could adopt a rule that would prohibit the making of a certain motion, including R/ASPA.  The rules could also be suspended to prohibit the making of a certain motion during an entire session. 

Ok, so an assembly could adopt a rule, and if it were that no one could ever make a motion to R/ASPA would be in effect permanently, since no one could ever rescind it?

36 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yes it is; I've already said as much. The sentence on page 486, lines 17-19 , means exactly what it says.

So just to be clear,  it hasn’t been made clear already,  can a board make a special rule of order that no board member can make the incidental motion to rescind, repeal, annul (or amend) something previously adopted?

I was under the impression from previous answers that making such a motion is a right that should not be taken away by another rule.

12 hours ago, J. J. said:

However, RONR permits its rules to be superseded by a special rule of order in most cases (p. 16, ll. 1-2).

RONR says two things.  The board cannot establish a special rule that runs counter a rule in RONR; most rules in RONR can be superseded by a special rule.  If you assume the former, then the latter cannot be true. 

 OK ...so is a special rule of order only temporary, or can it be permanent?

 Is there such a thing as a standing special rule of order?

6 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

Le's simplify it even further. Go back and read Mr. Martin's response that was just endorsed by Mr. Honemann. The essence of the answer was that an assembly with the proper authority can create a Special Rule of Order to prohibit reconsideration of past decisions. The assembly with that authority would be the general membership meeting of the organization.

Equating that with a prohibition on making any motions is not correct.

So are you saying that bringing a motion before the assembly to rescind a past action or decision is not a right?  Or are you saying that it is a right that can be taken away by the membership only (by a vote of the membership) or by a vote at a meeting of the membership? Because a membership meeting could be comprised of two members... the entire membership voting body is many more (in my case, over 300).

6 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Sure, why not?

RONR doesn’t really get into philosophical questions like this, but I personally am inclined to think the right to make one motion is as important as the right to make another.

A special rule of of order cannot be adopted which prevents a particular board member from making motions. A special rule of order preventing all board members from making motions would be in order, although it’s not clear how the board would then conduct business (perhaps the rule would specify this). Such a rule, however, can only be adopted by the membership.

Similarly, a rule which prohibits or limits the making of motions to bring a question again before the assembly (for all board members, not a single member) is in order, but it may only be adopted by the membership.

 When you say it may only be adopted by the membership, do you mean the entire membership body? Similarly to what is needed to amand by-laws?

 Let me try to simplify this a bit.

Is the right of a board member to resend or amend something previously adopted as strong or significant a right as making a main motion?

 If the answer is yes, could a special rule of order be made that states that a board member cannot make motions?

Outside of the detail of executive session and what can and can’t be done there, what is the answer to the above question?

4 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

As you feel this may violate state law or, at least, that the provisions of state law will have an impact here, you should consult an attorney familiar with the applicable law.

More generally, it is a good idea to get legal advice before signing any agreements such as is being proposed

A wise consideration, thank you.

10 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

If I understood the thread correctly it seems as though the intention is not to prevent a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted but instead to adopt a special rule of order to cause such motions to automatically be considered in executive session unless they fit the category of motions that may not be considered in executive according to statutory limitations.

 In essence, this agreement says we will not disagree with any prior action of the board unless we keep it a secret by bringing it up only in executive session...  

but due to the restrictions on executive session, that means that a huge number of topics can never lawfully be brought up at all for reconsideration.

It seems the agreement is intended to severely restrict or even eliminate the ability for board members to bring up a prior action for reconsideration.

Let me clarify...

When I say member I mean board member, and it would apply to all board members.

They are asking all board members to sign a document that makes them promise to only bring up a disagreement with a prior action in executive session (and also to keep it secret) which, unless it had to do with a strict list of executive session topics, it would not qualify to be brought up in executive session (and according to our state laws, it would be illegal to discuss or do business on an authorized topics)

 It’s a bit circular, and I’m not even sure if they planned it that way, but if signed, that would be it’s effect... that nothing would be able to be brought up in open session that any board member disagreed with, even if they planned on asking for reconsideration.

I know this seems a bit convoluted, but I hope that the meaning is clear...

I’d like to be able to argue (when the time comes) that bringing up a prior decision for reconsideration is as strong of a right as making a  motion. Do you think it is?

Would you say that it is a members right to be able to bring up the past decision of the board if they plan on asking for reconsideration or rescinding of the original motion?

Can a board make a special rule of order or implement a rule on an  agreement of some kind that says that a member can never bring up a past decision for reconsideration?

Thank you.

I continue to be humbled by the knowledge and generosity I find here.

5 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

No.

Go check the minutes.

Yes, of course - in part because there is no "new board" and "old board." There's just a board. The people on it change, but the board remains. 

 

No. If you want to know what was decided in the past and people don't remember, refer to the minutes.

Ok, will do, thanks

1 hour ago, Chris Harrison said:

An adopted motion continues in force until it is fully executed, amended, rescinded, or reconsidered.  A motion that is defeated can be renewed (subject of course to any rules governing how and when it can be introduced).  So in other words, just because the assembly decided something doesn't mean a future assembly can't go another direction.

One thing ...there was an item of business  that was improperly handled six months ago.  

there was a committee that existed, and it was brought to the table in a way that actually broke state law, but I did not know that at the time and I don’t think anyone else did either...

there was an (illegal) discussion about getting rid of the committee, and then an announcement that the committee was no more, but there was never a resending of the original motion, and I don’t even think there was a motion or a vote to get rid of the committee it was just a discussion (illegal discussion) and an announcement in open session.

If the board acted from that point forward as if this bit of business had been properly handled, what would you say about that?

 Does it default to some kind of “done deal” mode because they acted as if it was handled correctly?

 Just a note:

The committee had certain privileges, and those privileges were taken away...  should they be immediately reinstated or ?

If the committee in fact still exists...

Thank you all, this was just what I was looking for.

 I don’t know what to look for or where but it seems that I’ve heard it somewhere explained here I just don’t know how to reference it...  and forgive the long exclamation to try to get a clear question out...

When a new board gets elected, do the decisions of the old board... do they all go to basically zero? Unless it’s regarding an ongoing vendor contract or something like that?

Example: one board member is on the board for several years... and a subject comes up they say  “oh, we already decided this about that” (in essence) 

Do past decisions of the board carry over to new boards?  

Since HOA board’s typically don’t seem to have the same kind of references that like caselaw for instance, for its own past decision making, doesn’t everything basically reset to zero for every new board?

Is there something in RONR that covers this?

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

 If you thought something violated your sense of propriety then you are free to express it by gaining recognition and moving the motion you think would fix the breach, policy or no policy. The alternative is to give up. Only you can make that choice.

I’m not sure I understand, and I think it would be extremely difficult to make such a motion to cover what I’d need it to.