BabbsJohnson

“We disapprove of you because our lunch was short two orders of fries.” So I suppose if a group censures a member for reasons that are illogical or don’t make sense, or to try to make that person continually feel unwelcome, even if just plain mean and unfair, nothing stops them? In the business world, many corporations adopt anti-bullying policies. If a society adopted one that included prohibiting such unfair actions, like censuring for unfair, untrue, or capricious reasons, assuming one could interpret it as harassment of a kind, and psychologically abusive, I suppose that’s what would be needed in order to say “that is not allowed”, and use that separate set of standards for judging such actions(?)

I still seem to be having trouble finding that forum...

Many thanks

If the reasons given for the censure was true, but the other members just didn’t want to be seen as going against the grain, and the motion failed, would it be proper for them to censure the person who raised the failed center just for trying to raising a censure? Would they have to provide any other reason, like claiming that the information was not true, for instance?

I’m going to hope it doesn’t come to that. The authors of our governing documents felt confident enough to name RONR as our parliamentary rules, and IMHO it would be awfully selfish of this temporary assembly to change the by-laws just because they don’t want to bother with RONR. It would impact every board beyond this one, and every piece of business deliberated on.

I remember somebody here mentioning a default set of parliamentary rules that were more complex and based on English Parliament? I might be getting that wrong... If a group changes their bylaws to remove the officially adopted set of parliamentary rules, does that mean they have to follow another set by default, or can they just run their meetings however they wish to at that point? Would they need to write their own set of rules, or would they just wing it each time and have it (possibly) be capricious & arbitrary depending on who was at the meeting? ”At the last meeting we used a talking stick for recognition & obtaining the floor. That was David’s idea, and he’s an idiot, so this time, it’s whoever shouts the loudest, or perhaps memebers could give the Chairperson a dollar, or so a little dance, each time they wish to speak...”

I would tend to agree, because to me it raises the next obvious question, of if people are not going to have a way to be recognized, how will they be obtaining the floor? Talk loudest? Talk before anyone else can? ¯\_(👁)_/¯

The president and manager are most definitely buddy-buddies. A bit too much in my opinion. It’s my opinion that the manager enables the President, in various ways, to abuse power, and to be a bully. When I said it the other board members draw to the president, I meant that they keep on her good side, and go along with what she wants, so that they will not be seen as dissenting or adversarial, and possibly become a target for her bullying. If a certain board member is seen as “troublesome”, it seems the manager and president work together behind the scenes to limit or block that board member’s voice, rights and/or participation. Most of the board members don’t care about RONR or don’t know enough about it to know what the rules are & when/if they might be being broken, and how various situations are handled.

Can a censure happen on an action at a past meeting? Like the manager making a call that should have been up to the chair or up to the board? Or for doing something like misinforming individual board members and the board as a whole about something in our bylaws that was essential? (She has maintained for several years, recently too that we did not have to use RONR, and even cited that this information was a result of her speaking to a lawyer... recently it was discovered that one of the lawyers she referred to was also not informed enough to give us or her correct information...ie he was wrong, and telling us the wrong thing too)

The presiding officer does seem to provide cover & protection of the manager, and the other board members draw to her so perhaps they will not become a target for her bullying or retaliation for standing up to her. Can a point of order be raised regarding the manager-related issues? Also: If a member moves to censure a presiding officer for example, or a manager... and let’s say the motion fails because it gets no second... Can that member be criticized or censured for attempting to raise a censure?

i have seen a manager participate in a board meeting almost as if they were a board member...even at times assume duties of the chair while an acting chair was present, in an impromptu way (these actions were not asked for). Examples: >A manager responds to a direct request from a board member in a side conversation who said they wished to adjourn to Executive Session (the manager gave direct permission to the member, and it was supposed to be an open session topic...there was no motion to adjourn, no vote, no decision of the board. The manager made the decision without the board). >Telling a board member they could not speak on a piece of information they brought that was not on the agenda (it was an article directly relevant to the topic that was on the agenda, and discussion had begun on that topic). >A manager calls on someone who has their hand raised during debate, and tells them they can speak >A manager inturrrupts a speaker if they thinks the speaker is wrong about something, or makes obvious gestures like shaking their head in an exaggerated way, rolling their eyes, etc or blurting out their opinion to the chair while a speaker has the floor. >A manager yells at a member, telling them to “spit it out” as they are trying to communicate to the chair that they were not prepared to speak on an upsetting topic (the chair allowed the manager to do this).

Thanks to everyone.

I imagine the following would happen: I raise a point of order citing the fact that people are talking without being recognized and that typically when weights with their hand raised in order to be recognized . Instead of rolling on the point of order I am Magine the president would look around the room and say does everybody want to do that do you want to raise your hand and wait to be recognized? Maybe they will just say yes or no out loud, or perhaps she would put it to a vote. If they voted to not wait to be recognized she would simply look at me and say “I guess that’s not what the group wants to do “

The group insists on first names only. They do not like any semblance of formality.

Would it be improper to say to the chair: “Madame President... it is customary to require people to raise their hand in order to be recognized, and then for you to recognize them in order for them to obtain the floor. Please correct those who do not, and bring them to order. These are a primary part of your duties, and you are not doing them. “

Issues are almost always people talking over each other, interrupting each other, and then also some people wait with their hand raised while other people talk without being recognized several people will talk without being recognized, while the one person just sits there with their hand raised, waiting Chair will often wait for all the other people to stop talking before they call on the person with a raised hand, and sometimes they even have to be reminded to do this or the person with the raised hand hast to waive their hand before the chair starts talking themselves or attempts to move on. The person who raises their hand is usually the only one who does this, because they are interested in following the rules, and are not the kind of person to just blurt out their comments (but everyone else is, and the chair never ever calls them to order, or tells them to stop doing what they are doing). The person who raises their hand and waits has been bullied by the chair. The chair has told each of the board members privately not to speak to or respond in any way to the person who has been bullied, and to only speak to them at meetings,.

Hypothetical: The President-as-Chair allows violations of decorum or not keeping the limits of debate. Let us say that a Point of order is raised, but several rules are been broken in fast succession before the point is acknowledged. Is it improper to mention each one when asked to state the point? If the president refuses or seems to be uninformed about the details of their duty, is it improper to ask flat out if the President is willing and able to do their duty, or if they know what their duty entails? (I plan on giving a cheat-sheet of decorum and debate rules to all at the beginning of the meeting)

Thank you, gentlemen.

Recently a proposed agreement was brought forth for all board members to sign, that included an item that stated that if a board member disagreed with any resolution that the board may have previously implemented, that they would only bring it up in executive session, and consider it confidential information. What I see first of all, is such an agreement may be asking board members to agree to violate state law in the future, since a past decision they wish to disagree with, may not fall within the authorized topics. We do not have the ability to add to, or re-define those topics, if we did so, we would essentially taking false authority in attempting to re-define state law. i also see this an attempt to remove the right to speak against a prior decision of the board, if that member intended to make a motion for the board to rescind or reconsider the action, as you describe above. What do you think?

It does have a similar provision, and is pretty clear that the list of topics is finite, non flexible

Thank you

I am looking for, but having some trouble finding the text that states a member has the right to speak against a prior decision or action if the board had decided to discuss it, or if they plan on making a motion to reconsider the action (?) Any help is appreciated

Ok, thank you

Referring to page 96, line 6-9 We have a specific list of authorized topics that are defined by state law, and by law, all other topics must be dealt with in Open Session. in regards to secrecy if an unauthorized topic is discussed in Executive (which would violate state law) does the text refrencedvabove still apply, that “everything that occurred” must stay secret? If what RONR requires it what also must be adhered to, it seems one would have to break the rules of RONR in violating the secrecy in order to report a breaking of state law, if an unauthorized topic was discussed. Even the discussion of the lawbreaking occurring is not allowed in Executive, under state law. I know state law will always supersede RONR, but does RONR “pick up” anywhere downstream of state law? I hope that’s not too confusing... Can anyone input on this? i want to understand this 100%

Can a manager, who is a non-board member who is usually present at meetings, be censured? Would that be the first step if a manager, for instance, made a unilateral decision on a piece of business that should have been a board decision?