Josh Martin

I think you should have stopped after your first sentence.

Because we have not yet been able to find a way to magically animate the book and get it to enforce itself. Rules do not enforce themselves. People enforce them. The chair is the first step in this process, and the assembly is the last step. Sometimes people are wrong, but someone has to make these decisions. The chair is the first step since this person has been entrusted with presiding over the assembly, which includes, among other things, interpreting and enforcing the assembly’s rules, and because the assembly presumably does not wish to decide every question of order itself. The assembly itself is the last step because that’s how democracy works. RONR assumes that most members of the assembly want to follow the rules. If this is not in fact the case, then the rules won’t be followed very well. This shouldn’t be surprising. To be clear, however, the courts do not enforce RONR itself. Certain provisions of RONR might also be found in statute, or perhaps the court will find that the fact that RONR is include in the bylaws creates some sort of contractual obligation, but the courts do not enforce parliamentary law.

You could adopt motions ordering the Secretary to return the minutes. You could pursue disciplinary action against the former Secretary, up to and including expelling her from the society (see your bylaws or Ch. XX of RONR if your bylaws are silent), in the hopes that the threat of such actions will persuade her to return the minutes. You could also consult an attorney to see what legal options are available. Finally, in the event the society is unsuccessful in getting the former Secretary to return the minutes, or if it seems it will take some time to do so, the society may wish to appoint a committee to recreate those minutes to the best of its ability.

So far as RONR is concerned, the member is free to refuse to answer the questions. The conversation about them “including accusations and the like” is certainly out of order if no relevant motion is pending, and I think there are limits even if such a motion is pending. I must stress again, however, in the strongest possible terms, that if you expect to be questioned by the association’s lawyer, you really need to present these questions to your own legal counsel, not to strangers on the internet.

Perhaps we are using the term differently. All I meant to say was that debate on a motion to censure, by its nature, will probably involve some discussion of why the person is being censured, which will naturally involve comments regarding the person who is being censured. Presumably, this will relate to one or more actions the person in question has taken which the assembly disapproves of. Conversely, a motion to buy pizza has no reason to involve comments regarding any person (positive, negative, or neutral) because they are not germane to the question before the assembly. I have no disagreement that there are still some limits in parliamentary law regarding what comments are in order, and there will likely also be legal concerns as well.

I already agree, but you seem to have changed your position, so I wonder if you fell through a “not” hole.

It would seem to me that the critical comments would certainly not be in order without a relevant motion pending, even in a small board. It seems to me that the rules of decorum still apply in a small board. As to comments which are personal but not indecorous, I suppose there is some more latitude in a small board since comments are in order without a motion pending, but it would seem to me that such comments should still at least be germane to the topic the assembly is discussing, or failing that, germane to the assembly’s business in a general sense. I don’t think the fact that discussion with no motion pending means members have free reign to say whatever they want. There is no doubt that the rules of decorum, to the extent of barring personal attacks or allegations against members, are in effect at all times during a meeting. I believe Mr. Mervosh’s question was whether (and to what extent) the rules of germaneness apply if there is no motion pending. I am inclined to think they apply, albeit in a modified form. If a board member is being questioned by the association’s lawyer, the first thing the board member should do is to obtain their own legal counsel as soon as possible, and start directing their questions to the lawyer, as the situation likely is (or will soon become) more of a legal issue than a parliamentary issue at that point. As noted previously, a Point of Order is likely the appropriate tool from a parliamentary perspective regarding the accusations. I don’t know that it violates any parliamentary rule to ask someone a question, although there is also no parliamentary rule requiring the member to answer. Whether a person is or not a lawyer is irrelevant so far as RONR is concerned. Members of the assembly have all of the rights of membership. Nonmembers may only be present or speak with the consent of the assembly.

The meeting may be called to order. A motion to establish an adjourned meeting is in order. The motions would then automatically be taken up at that meeting. Alternatively, if there is already a meeting scheduled which is within a quarterly interval, the meeting can simply be adjourned, and the items will be taken up at that meeting. A motion to Postpone is not in order without a quorum, but it is also not necessary.

In all of the above scenarios, a motion to censure, or some other motion where such comments would be germane, would need to be made first. Notice is not required of a motion to censure. If such comments are made without a relevant motion pending, a Point of Order may be raised.

Yes, I understand. As I have said previously, there is no doubt in my mind that if the minutes are accurate, what is described does not constitute unanimous consent. The only reason I am hedging at all is because, given the society’s many other problems, it seems at least possible that something may have been missed when writing the minutes. Announcements don’t belong in the minutes. If the chair merely says that something is happening, and makes no statement to the effect of “If there is no objection...” that does not mean the chair’s statement is now the act of the assembly.

I think this is all correct, and would add that in either case, the chair must provide the reasoning for the ruling. Unless the motion is actually involving a person directly, comments regarding a person will be out of order in any event because they will not be germane to the pending motion. The remarks might, additionally, be a violation of decorum, depending on their nature. Now, if a person is actually involved in the motion directly (such as an election or a motion to censure), the situation is somewhat different, but even in such cases I would be inclined to rule at least some of the categories of comments you mention out of order as not germane.

Well, it sounds like these words, or anything approximating them, may not have actually been said. I agree that, in the event they were said, ignorance is not a valid defense.

I disagree that this is sufficient for unanimous consent. The procedure for unanimous consent requires the chair to actually request unanimous consent or, at a minimum, to imply such a request by words such as “If there is no objection...” The chair simply making a statement is not a proper request for unanimous consent.

If the assembly makes a decision on a main motion, whether by unanimous consent or otherwise, it seems to me the minutes should reflect that fact, rather than simply saying that the President announced it. It seems to me the latter creates the impression that it was simply the President’s statement and not the assembly’s decision. I agree that the minutes do not need to reflect the fact that the motion was adopted by unanimous consent, or by a 2/3 vote, or whatever - if no counted vote is ordered, the minutes need only note that it was adopted.

In such an event, it is possible the chair is applying the rules inconsistently. It is also possible there is some difference in the two situations which explains the difference in rulings. Even under RONR, there are limited circumstances in which a member may interrupt a speaker. In any event, I concur with my colleagues that such “experiments” may be counterproductive to your goals. I certainly do not think such tactics will be helpful in persuading the President to change her behavior or to resign, since it seems to me they would only serve to irritate the President. Even for the goal of gathering “ammunition” for the President’s removal, I think you run a risk of the President using such instances as part of her defense in the event there ultimately is a motion to remove her. A person in such a position might make a claim that such instances are evidence of a “plot” against her as a method of diverting attention from her own actions. In short, I don’t know that it is helpful to purposely break the rules in an attempt to engineer some sort of “evidence” against the President. It seems to me you have plenty of naturally occurring instances to use as evidence, and if they aren’t sufficiently persuasive for the assembly, I don’t think the tactics outlined here will tip the scales in your favor.

Yes, I think so (assuming that there is no objection). Yes, I think it could be considered a request for unanimous consent assuming such a request was actually made. A request for unanimous consent involves actually asking for consent, or at the very minimum, stating “If there is no objection...” as an implied request for unanimous consent. The chair can’t simply say whatever he wants, without even indicating that objections are in order, and assume there is unanimous consent. Possibilities such as this are why I said “Assuming the minutes are accurate and complete in this matter.” If there is a granted request for unanimous consent, the minutes should reflect as much.

As I recall from previous threads, the OP’s organization is a homeowner’s association (or similar entity).

I think you still could (within reason, at least), but unless there is some reason to believe the outcome would be different (such as if the facts are slightly different, or if the chair or the members have changed since the last time), I’m not sure what the point would be. If you were to repeatedly, within the same meeting, raise a Point of Order regarding the same situation, when the assembly has already made clear it disagrees with your interpretation, then I think further Points of Order on that issue (within the same meeting) could be ruled out of order as dilatory.

I suppose that this would be handled as a Point of Order, and what happens next depends on the outcome of the Point of Order and any subsequent appeal. I think that this should be properly understood as a motion to rescind, even if not worded as such, and should be considered a valid vote. Since previous notice is apparently not given in this example, this would require a 2/3 vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership (of the board) for adoption. The effect of the applicable rules in state law concerning agendas and executive sessions is a legal question and should be directed to an attorney.

Well, there you have it. That’s how your disciplinary process works. No trial needed.

Assuming the minutes are accurate and complete in this matter, I agree the committee still exists.

Yes.

For starters, did you check whether your bylaws have their own rules concerning discipline or removal? Those rules take precedence over RONR. Maybe you don’t need a trial at all. The questions concerning open meeting law will have to be directed to an attorney.

Nothing in RONR requires anything to be on the agenda or for the assembly to use an agenda at all. Giving previous notice of a motion to rescind is not required, but it lowers the threshold for adoption. Again, no rule in RONR requires anything to be on the agenda. The rules concerning previous notice are the same. What do you mean by “decided?” As for the state law issues, talk to a lawyer.

There are rules concerning dilatory motions, including Points of Order, but no, the chairman obviously cannot rule a Point of Order out of order (or ignore it) as “disruptive” simply because she does not feel like dealing with it. You can’t appeal if the chair refuses to rule, because with no ruling there is nothing to appeal from. If the chairman refuses to rule on a Point of Order, see RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 650-651 for information on Remedies for Abuse of Authority by the Chair in a Meeting. in any event, the explanation would be when the member makes the Point of Order. It is not in order for members to say anything when they do not have the floor. (Regardless, if such comments are raised, properly or otherwise, this says something about whether you are likely to be successful in persuading the other members to follow the rules.) The Point of Order, the chair’s ruling and reasoning, and the appeal should already be recorded in the minutes. Even if you mean in debate on the appeal, I would be inclined to rule such comments out of order as not germane. I disagree. This is not a proper reason to refuse to rule on a Point of Order. The chair could point to the precedent as a reason for the ruling, but could not simply refuse to rule on this basis. You don’t. You’ll have to settle for a paraphrase or learn to look things up quickly. The assembly is not required to sit around while you flip through the book.