BabbsJohnson

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

22 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Based on the facts presented, it seems the committee still exists. (I assume that there also was not unanimous consent.)

 

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.

3 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Possibly, depending on the specific nature of the allegations.

It depends on, among other things, what action is desired, what the bylaws say regarding discipline, and how the term of office is defined.

Then there will be no trial, as the society has determined that the report presented by the investigative committee does not warrant preferring charges and holding a trial. (If formal disciplinary procedure are required, the first step is to make a motion to appoint an investigative committee.)

I think randomly suggesting that some an “abuse of power” is happening is improper, whether or not it is described as an “accusation.” I think these words, in and of themselves, would not be improper if included in a resolution to appoint an investigative committee, or a motion to censure, but the “evidence” described above may or may not be proper in such motions or in the discussion of such motions.

Well, I think it also depends on the specific nature of the charges and evidence.

Yes.

I don’t know that they are “gratuitously inflammatory,” but they are not in order unless a relevant motion is pending.

To be clear, you believe this would be out of order even if a relevant motion was pending?

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

10 minutes ago, reelsman said:

Gratuitously inflammatory language about another member is clearly not in order.

“I have experienced bullying from this person”

“I have seen what I believe are abuses of power”

Are these gratuitously inflammatory?

36 minutes ago, reelsman said:

Only those arguments in debate that have a direct bearing on the motion before the assembly are permissible.

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?

1 hour ago, Chris Harrison said:

Was there a vote on dissolving the committee? 

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!

18 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

As I was afraid of, this discussion is quickly veering from “Do procedural rules in applicable law supersede RONR?” to “What does this particular law require?” I concur with Mr. Merritt that if there are questions on that subject, they should be directed to an attorney.

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

Thanks 

14 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Based on another recent thread by the OP, it appears the board may be subject to some “open meeting” or “sunshine” laws, so the OP should be certain to exercise caution and review those laws before meeting privately with other board members to discuss removing an officer.

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.

38 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

If members stray from the allowed topic or, if the regulations so require, from the scope of the notice given in the motion, and if a friendly reminder goes unheeded, you should protect yourself by raising a point of order that this discussion violates the regulation, and then follow up to make certain that your objection and the chair's ruling are recorded in the minutes.

Very good idea...thank you

29 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

If the assembly is of higher authority than the board (in many cases they are) then during an assembly meeting you can move a motion to request an explanation from the president concerning issue such-and-such. When the answer comes back you can then keep your peace is the explanation seems satisfactory or move some kind of corrective action if it is not satisfactory.

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.

1 minute ago, Weldon Merritt said:

No! It's the other way around. Applicable state law trumps RONR.

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?

2 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

Nosey, could you answer Zev's question with a yes or no answer?

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

48 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Unless I missed it, we still don' know if you are a member of this board.  Your "job" may vary, depending.

I am a member, and an officer.

32 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

I You see something you think violates the rules, then make a Request For Information first. Perhaps the presiding officer has a reasonable explanation that satisfies you. If not, then either raise a Point Of Order or make a motion to undo what you think needs to be undone. Its not complicated.

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.