BabbsJohnson

What if the thing that is said is true, and hinders others from carrying out their duties?

I just know there was no motion, no vote, and the minutes were approved showing only a mention discussion by the board, and a single board member making an announcement.

I’ll mention again, that this would be during open session...so no motion pending, so not in debate.

“I have experienced bullying from this person” “I have seen what I believe are abuses of power” Are these gratuitously inflammatory?

I would assume stating such a thing in an open forum would be outside the limits of debate, but let’s say someone has abused power, or has bullied another board member, and a board member says: I think this person is a bully, or, there is a bully in this group (ironically, everyone would know who that was, because there is definitely a bully) Is that considered a personal attack if there is no motion being made, and it’s not in debate?

According to the minutes, there was a discussion in Executive, and an announcement in Open, but no note of any motion or vote in either set of minutes.

Is it a breach of decorum to speak about a possible abuse of power, in order to illustrate the issue, and show any evidence? If it is a breach of decorum, then how is the issue to be dealt with, if someone believes that abuse of power is happening? If a trial is the answer, what if the society in question wants to have nothing to do with the process of a trial? Is it improper to state the belief that an abuse of power is happening, without making an accusation?

If it is merely discussed to dissolve a committee, but a motion is never made to dissolve it, does the committee still exist? I’m not sure if it matters, but the discussion was also hard as an unauthorized topic in executive session, which even if it was an item of business that was voted on, it is my understanding that since it was unauthorized ,it would have been nullified for being dealt with Improperly, meaning not in open session. Note: the discussion to end the committees did not have a motion, but the society moved on as if the business of dissolving it had been official.

They can discuss pending litigation, or potential litigation, meaning threats of litigation, and legal advice pertaining to the authorized topics.

Wow!

Yes, that seems to be the next step...I’m working on that. Thanks

I would definitely not meet with what would be considered a quorum ...perhaps as individuals only

I have read them, and it doesn’t include any language or category of discipline of a board member. It mentions discussion of personnel, meaning who the board might hire, fire, review performance of... and hearings for homeowners that have either broken association rules or have some kind of complaint happening.

So, following up on everyone’s answers, that leaves me with one final question... If we cannot stray by law from any of the authorized topics for executive session does that mean that we would have to do something like a disciplinary process in open session? I am aware that committees could meet in closed session, but that they must be equal to less than a quorum of the board, so that a committee meeting is not a board meeting. So...if not in open Session, Is this perhaps how a board member discipline or conflict problem would be solved? To appoint a committee to handle it, and then allow the committee to meet in a closed session, and then perhaps report back to the board?

It’s a delicate situation for sure. i will consider my options... Not too optimistic at the moment, but thank you for the encouraging words.

Very good idea...thank you

By assembly, I meant Board. (deliberative assembly is how I often refer to it, sorry for the confusion)

Ok, thanks for the extra-extra clarification. Much appreciated.

Thanks everyone.

Ok, so if we are using RONR, and something in an entry states that a thing not on that list "should be discussed in Executive Session", that's irrelevant if our state laws do not allow for it? Sorry for the redundancy, but I just want to be very clear on this.

My question is this: If by state law, our board is only allowed to broach a very narrow and specific list of topics in Executive Session, does RONR trump that in any regard, to allow for other topics to be discussed?

Sorry I did not see it. I am a member of the assembly.

I am a member, and an officer.

and if the presiding officer as well as the manager and the other members are not knowledgeable of the rules that was broken, is it then my "job" to bring all that evidence forth?

“What exactly does this mean? If a person has the powers of chair, and also has administrative powers as President as assigned by your bylaws, the person has and may exercise both sets of powers. What does it matter whether these powers are viewed as “fused”?“ My only concern are abuses of power. I was looking for support through RONR to show why this “fusion” does not equal a sum greater than its parts.