BabbsJohnson

7 members.

Also:  are you referring to p 457-457 when you say: 

“RONR is already quite clear that whatever administrative duties, rights and powers the presiding officer might have as president are separate and apart from the rights, duties and powers of the presiding officer at a meeting.“ (?)

I am trying to specify at some point, to the person who serves as chair, that the perceived powers they might feel are theirs as president, do not fuse with the role of the chair.

Our bylaws specify a chairman of the board as an elected officer, but I guess we just skip electing that role, because it remains unoccupied.  If we were to elect one, I assume it would be in the same way that we elect any other officer (by the assembly) since there is nothing in the bylaws that says otherwise.

I have written this.  It is my own analysis, and I am wondering if it is accurate, and if not, where am I off base?

In this analysis, the By-Laws define the role of Association President, and all their actions and responsibilities, as being wholly subject to the control of the board.

President as Chairperson
1. In the case of the absence of an elected or appointed Chairperson, the President acts as Chair in meetings.

2. This means the President does the work of the Chairperson, and that an Association President role is not fused with the role of Chair, meaning a person who is President and acting as chair, does not bring any extra power to the role of Chair (mostly because the President does not have any more powers than other members).
The Chairperson role is neutral, and should reflect similarities and consistencies in how it is conducted, no matter who might act in that role, including the Association President.

3. The Chair should not use their position, and the perceived leadership they carry, as a personal podium for their own protracted arguments, stated opinions, nor to make direct rebuttal commentary on what other members discuss during debate (these are all meant to mean that he Chair should not do so "out of turn" meaning the Chair should not be allowed as many places to speak as they wish, anytime they wish.

Example: The Chair rebuts after a certain member has spoken, nearly every time this member speaks, and each time, they either are attempting to directly invalidate that member's argument, or comment on whether they agree or disagree before recognizing the next speaker).

4. As a member, the person who is President enjoys all the rights that any regular member would, and in small assemblies, can make motions, debate, and vote.

The role of Association President does not typically come into play during meetings, except for in their duties as Chair.

28 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

If the President has exercised powers in excess of those granted in the bylaws, raise a point of order. This should accomplish all of the things you wish to achieve.

Can anything be done if the Manager has exercised powers not granted?

A President and property manager are good friends, and I feel their relationship creates a power overreach issue in the following:

The manager has made unilateral decisions that should have been brought to the board for deliberation.

I believe there has been discussion between the manager and the president in between meetings, where they, acting together, made unilateral decisions on items that have always been the jurisdiction of the board. 

I am wondering if there is anything in RONR that addresses this kind of issue.

There is nothing in our by-laws that grants the property manager nor the president powers to make such decisions, either as individuals, or together, as a kind of "board of two".

We have not, as a board, bestowed such powers on either individual, nor I doubt we could if we wanted to, unless we changed the By-Laws, or say, granted powers through appointing a committee and defined that in a charter or something (?)

I predict that the President will reacxt badly to this being brought up in a meeting, and I doubt the manager will have a favorable response. I also do not think the other members are aware that this indeed may be an overreach of power, and I'd like to make them see that this is fact, in a clear and concise way.

I welcome any auggestions.

3 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

But, unfortuately, none of those are parliamentary solutions. There is no parliamentary solution if people are uninterested in following the rules, and the electorate is uninterested in getting a board that does.

I don’t think the membership understands that we use Roberts Eules unless individuals have been involved in volunteering on boards or other situations that might use them.  

 I see it as a valuable tool as well as having a philosophical side,  but I’m sure there are plenty of people that just think of it as a pain .

10 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Based on previous threads, my understanding is that this is an HOA, so the OP does not really have much choice in this matter, unless she wishes to move.

Yes...try to change the culture, move or quit.

On 5/7/2019 at 3:09 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Ordinary societies cannot discipline non-members. However, they can certainly be removed from the committee, not by the disciplinary procedures in your bylaws but by any procedure in your bylaws (or other rules) for removing committee members, and if none, then by rescinding their committee appointment. 

If a member is to be disciplined, is it required to tell them why they are being disciplined?

If a non-member (or member) is removed from a committee, are they typically given a reason (is it required to give them a reason?)

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

What exactly do you feel this additional nuance will accomplish? What are you looking for? What do you think is missing in our previous answers that you think would be changed by additional nuance?

I have asked it is all the ways I can, I believe.  I can’t really ask in any more ways without the understanding that would be reached by actually listening to or witnessing what I’m talking about.

You all have been patient, informative, kind and courteous.

Even if you witnessed when I refer to-the unfolding of a meeting-the solutions that you point to would likely be the same.

Calling out issues in an environment where little is invested in understanding or respecting the rules of order has done nothing but made people think I’m being too meticulous, and since they have not been the focus of what I have issues with, they don’t necessarily care that I have.

The truth is, things like interrupting, talking whenever people feel like just blurting things out, while others wait politely,  back and forth exchanges that wear out the effectiveness of an argument because of belittling comments or fallacious counterarguments or questioning, that happens in almost every meeting.

It is stressful when I feel the Rules are the only thing that can help, because they are the only official resource to pull from, and that the level of knowledge and interest so far with them are minimal at best. It feels like a lone fight for something that’s supposed to be at the center of our transactions, but it’s not, and neither is the understanding of why they matter, their true purpose, and that they are not just some pain in the neck mandatory formality. 

Personally I think all the officer positions all need charters to clarify and reinforce the scope of the duties and responsibilities, because I think sometimes people assume things, and then act accordingly, and sometimes they assume something from ignorance, or it might be strategic, but in either case-it can be a wrong assumption.

If they do that long enough, and if what they’re doing is inappropriate, it becomes a malformed cultural tradition...like a tumor, that’s hard to formulate a remedy for, especially when that tumor gives someone something that serves them, and especially when someone fighting against that feels alone in seeing that there is something amiss, and showing others that it matters, and that it’s worth it to try a bit harder to get it right.

Sorry for the rant. I’m not sure I’ve communicated anything new or helpful. 

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Edited to add: well, I found the thread, and apparently you are the same person as member "Nosey" but you have changed your name. Perhaps you thought that by making this post using a different name we would not know who you are, but when you changed your name it changed your name on all of your posts.

We have cautioned you in the past about making changes in posts that wind up being misleading. As I recall, you promised not to do so again. However, you just did it again.

I removed a specific example that was not needed in order for the question to be clear. I didn’t think it would be an issue since at the time, there was only one very brief response, and it was in response to the general question, not the example.

The question was too convoluted with the extra example included. The example was redundant of the original question.

Yes, I realized the name change would be universal. I got tired of looking at the other name.

I realize I keep asking questions that are very similar, because I keep thinking I’m not capturing the nuances of the situation.

It would be easiest to be a fly on the wall at meetings, but they do not have a good reaction to recording, even though it is allowed by law. 

52 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

What do you mean by "personality"?

Calling people by their first names, speaking back to those in debate as though they and answering them directly, like a conversation, going back and forth with other members as they speak until they have “won” the exchange, after someone has spoken, paraphrasing their argument and then saying they disagree with it, having ongoing conversation with the management, directing management independently of board voted-upon action, directing vendors outside of board voted-upon action, interjecting their opinion anywhere they wish...

basically not keeping to the “chairperson” script, if one were to strip it down to its basics.

From watching  city council or other kinds of board meetings that demonstrate a chair person in action, it seems like that position and the duties associated with it are very neutral and procedural, and do not typically have “personality” injected into them.

In a situation where the chair in injects a lot of personality into the role, is it appropriate to remind them that it is a neutral role? 

In a situation where they have been doing this for a long time, how might one approach it?

26 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

Chapter 20 covers it all.

Thank you

If By-Laws do not mention any process about complaints an assembly member has about another member, is there anything in RONR about how to deal with a complaint?

example:

*abuses of power - multiple

*bullying behavior-many instances

*not adhering to parliamentary procedure

Is what is contained in the chapter on discipline  the only guidelines given?

What if an infraction happens in a meeting, and the member was so frazzled by it, that they didn’t understand until later that a violation of decorum occurred?

What if a procedural violation occurred outside a meeting by a manager (non-board member)?

7 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I would also note that the chair called the trees, and not the member, ugly and worse.

It was a specific point of discussion that those treees were that member’s recommendation, as it was their job in the months prior to recommend tree types. 

The chair initiated the member’s expulsion from the role, after the member questioned the chair’s power, in a prior interaction. 

Thank you for your input.

We are using the small board rules.  Would it matter if the chair was right next to the member who they were speaking to and turned directly to them to tell them about the ugly thing, instead of addressing the room perhaps?

Or might thete have been a difference if the chair had said : “I think your choices are bad” (to the member) and then went on to say things about the ugly trees?

I have no idea if the following would be considered a violation of decorum or not.

Example: we are in discussion of a proposal for trees to plant 

member, upon discussion of a proposal where a different tree type was on a prior proposal that had not been voted on:

member: these trees have a successful history on our site, and are green all year round

chair: well, I happen to think  those trees are ugly. They are the ugliest trees we have on site, in fact. I don’t like those trees, and I’ll never vote for them.

member: They were recommended by three different professional agencies, as well as the city, and they are very versatile. 

chair: Go ahead and make your motion if you want them approved, I’ll even be nice and second your motion.

member: I move that we approve these trees for planting

chair: second!

 chair: any discussion?

member: reiterates all the merits of the tree type to the fellow board members, who are all looking as if they are cringing 

chair: any other discussion? 

(None...blank stares)

chair: all in favor say aye!

member: is the only one that says aye

chair: the motion fails!

chair: looks at other members, then initial member and laughs: I guess nobody else wants those trees either! 

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

It is correct that whatever other duties and authority the chairman may have, this does not change the manner in which the person is expected to preside.

Thank you, I think IF I have a venn diagram of the answers I have gotten, there would be a fair bit of overlap, but this is a good part of the bottom line that I was hoping to get to. The other would be the duties of president, which was covered by Bruce and Richard. Thank you all for your patience.

5 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

While I agree with Bruce Lages, I would say that if the president is not the presiding officer, then he is there in exactly the same capacity as all of the other members. He might or might not be expected to give a report, just as other officers and committee chairmen might he. Nosey, I really don't understand why you are having such a hard time understanding the difference between the rights and duties of a presiding officer at a meeting and a President Who is not the presiding officer. Where the president is not the presiding officer, he has whatever administrative and managerial functions the bylaws assign to him as president, but he simply does not preside at meetings. It is not at all unusual for organizations, especially larger corporations, to have a president and a chairman of the board who are different people. Their duties are completely different. The president essentially runs the business and is subject to the directives of the board. The chairman of the board presides at meetings. What is so hard to understand about that?

The point I have been trying to confirm, is that if chairing a meeting, the President should chair it like anyone else who is capable might.

I am trying to confirm, albeit in a roundabout way, and I apologize for that, that they do not have the right to be like a judge, dictator or ruler while chairing, just because they have the title of President while they are doing the Chair's job. My lengthy dialogue here was trying to confirm that if the roles are separated, their duties become clear and distinct from each other, but if they are both being fulfilled by the same person, they are not endowed with extra powers because of it, that would be outisde of the sum of the parts (of the two roles).

Part of what I'm trying to get at here, is the idea that if, in an orgnaization that had a board of 7, including the president of the association, if they elected to have a chairman also, which they could, and the chair presided over the meetings, at that point, would the president be doing anything different than any other member, during the meetings?

Would they have more power in any way, or extra things to do, while in a meeting, because they were president?

Given the By-Laws as show in the original post?

 Looking on page 43 line 16-19, it is said that speakers should avoid injecting a “personal note” into debate.

What does “personal note” mean, in this context?

I swear I’m not trying to be dense, what I’m trying to get at is: when a president chairs a meeting, does their presidential role somehow merges with them acting as Chairperson to make what their presence and role at the meeting represent more power than a Chairperson would use on their own?

I guess my point in the hypothetical is, if we separate the roles, what does the president do in meetings if anything, that shows their role? Is there anything they do that’s specifically “Presidential”?

Mr. Brown answered that they would basically be in the same position as a regular member if they were not chairing the meeting, so does that mean if they act as Chairperson, should they be doing it in the same (pure) way an appointed Chairperson would?

I apologize for any redundancy...just trying to be clear.

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

I think in the case you described, the president becomes the chief executive officer of the organization but not its presiding officer, unless he is presiding in the absence of the chairman.

It is also important to note that under the "small board rules" as defined in RONR, even the presiding officer participates just like the other members (although RONR isn't clear as to whether the chair can make motions under the small board rules.  I am assuming he can).  If the president isn't serving as the presiding officer, then he would clearly be treated just the same as all other members.

So, is it safe to say that, if not acting as Chair, the “President” part of their role does not teally come into play during meetings? 

Given the description in the original post that outlines the President’s role...

I have a hypothetical question...

Using the model of the definition below as how a set of by-laws defines the role of Association President:

if the assembly that was using those by-laws elected a President, but also elected a Chairperson (our by-laws do allow this, we just never have exercised the option), since the President would not be acting as Chair in the meetings, would they be doing anything differently than the other general members?

Not sure if it’s important, but in this hypothetical, they are using the RONR adjusted Rules for small assemblies. 

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

The most pertinent rule regarding this subject is the following:

“When a question is pending, a member can condemn the nature or likely consequences of the proposed measure in strong terms, but he must avoid personalities, and under no circumstances can he attack or question the motives of another member. The measure, not the member, is the subject of debate.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 392)

Ad hominem is described as “a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.” 

So yes, I think it is fair to say that they are describing largely the same thing. As to whatever difference there might be between “attack” and “remark,” I think this is irrelevant. The word “attack” is not the key word in this rule. The key is that members may not make any comments regarding “the motives of another member” because “The measure, not the member, is the subject of debate.”

Thank you Josh. It's amazing how that one simple thing is so important.

"Debate the measure, not the man" or "Attack arguments, not people" 

I like to think of it also as, once an argument leaves a speaker, it has little to do with him after that.

It's in the arena, to be examined, and it either has "legs" and stands well, or it doesn't, and can be easily "torn down".

It's either a good argument or not, has merit or not, represents truth or not, offers solutions or not. 

The way I see it, the speaker is merely the method of delivery. Once an argument leaves the speaker, it has a life of it's own, the longevity of which is determined by it's reasonable and efficient aplicability to the issue/problem at hand.

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

See page 392 also. 

Will do, thank you