BabbsJohnson

8 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Any assembly may, so far as RONR is concerned, censure Nancy Pelosi for no reason at all. It can also censure Nancy Pelosi because the sky is blue. 

“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(?)

3 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

(The talking stick, however, may have a different idea. I suppose you'd have to ask about that in the Official Talking Stick Q&A Forum.)

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

Many thanks 

11 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

It would not be appropriate for members to just start to criticize the member who made the motion to censure, as such comments are not in order unless they are germane to a pending motion (such as a motion to censure).

It would be in order to censure the member for attempting to raise a censure.

 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?

9 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I don’t know. Ask the people who want that to be the rule.

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...”

14 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

(I would also note that if the chairman is in doubt on such a basic point as whether recognition is required to speak in debate, this is a bit of a problem.)

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?  ¯\_(👁)_/¯ 

8 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

I take it they are not buddy-buddies.

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)

7 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

A non-member may answer questions posed by the presiding officer, with the consent of the assembly, or when invited by way of a motion moved by a member and adopted by the assembly. The rest of this stuff is a blatant violation of decorum and should not be allowed. Why not move to have the manager excluded from the meeting as soon as he attempts to speak? If he does any of these things again perhaps a motion to bar him permanently from these meetings is the solution. And if the presiding officer is somehow providing cover for the presence and behavior of this manager perhaps a motion to censure both the presiding officer and the manager might provide some relief.

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.

44 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Yes, for a few reasons. First, you are not the President's supervisor with the power of correction. Secondly, in a formal setting, you would never address the chair as "you" and "your" — far too personal. Third, when the rules are not being followed, there is already a mechanism of enforcement, and that is the Point of Order, which includes calling other members to order if necessary.

 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 “

29 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Yes, for a few reasons. First, you are not the President's supervisor with the power of correction. Secondly, in a formal setting, you would never address the chair as "you" and "your" — far too personal. Third, when the rules are not being followed, there is already a mechanism of enforcement, and that is the Point of Order, which includes calling other members to order if necessary.

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. “

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

Assuming the Points of Order regarding the other infractions remain timely at that point, I think this would generally be the correct course of action, although some additional facts would be desirable to say for sure. If a situation arises in which “Let us say that a Point of order is raised, but several rules are been broken in fast succession before the point is acknowledged,” the procedures on pgs. 644-648 and pgs. 650-654 may also be relevant, since (assuming that these are not points of a “purely technical character” as discussed on pg. 250), it would seem that something has gone very wrong.

I concur with Mr. Kapur, however, that there are also practical and political considerations to take into account, and it may therefore be beneficial to raise Point(s) of Order regarding only the most critical matters.

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)

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Yes. A censure is simply a motion expressing the assembly’s disapproval. An assembly can censure anyone.

I suppose the question is whether this is the “first step” in terminating the employee. So far as RONR is concerned, the board is free to terminate its employees using whatever steps it wishes, although I concur with Dr. Stackpole that applicable law and the employee’s contract (if any) should also be consulted in this manner.

Thank you, gentlemen.

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

What RONR says on this subject is “In debate, a member cannot reflect adversely on any prior act of the society that is not then pending, unless a motion to reconsider, rescind, or amend it is pending, or unless he intends to conclude his remarks by making or giving notice of one of these motions.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 393)

So the fact the “the board had decided to discuss it” does not seem sufficient. The fact that the member plans on making a motion to Reconsider (or Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted if it’s too late for Reconsider) would be, so long as those plans involve concluding his remarks with making or giving notice of such a motion.

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?