OneBookToRuleThemAll

Thank you, Atul and Josh - I appreciate your help with this.

I sit on a public board governed by the Maryland Open Meetings Act. We generally do a good job of following the rules and welcome the public to attend our meetings. At times -- as I'm sure you all must have experienced -- the public will interject comments about a topic before the board outside of the public comments section. As a rule, the chair thanks the constituent for there comment, admonishes them to wait for public comment and moves on with the meeting. I think we -- the board -- is fine with this. Occaissionally, there are times during especially controversial topics when the interruptions are disruptive to the overall proceedings (e.g, several members of the audience trying to speak at once, etc.) Once, an audience member stood up and said, "Point of order, .... " It can be a lot. My question: when this happens the audience interactions are TOO much. Is it appropriate for a member of the board to interject and say something like, "Mr. Chair, point of order. The speaker is not a member of the board and we are not open to public comment at this time." Or some such verbiage. Also, best advice for how you handle the public during your meetings would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help.

That's a good point, @Dan Honemann. I will review those guidelines this afternoon. Though not strictly related to RRoO, I will try to post an update to this post for the good of the order. NOTE - I find this forum incredibly useful (and powerful) as a resource. Thank you to everyone who replied to this -- admittedly flawed -- thread.

@Richard Brown Thank you. The Task Force -- formed to appropriate Federal funds to community groups -- is a body formed by a Town Council (and subject to Maryland Open Meetings Act). The recusals derive from ethics rules laid out by an Ethics commission and adopted by the Town Council. So - I think you answered the question very cleanly (and is backed up by Chapter XI, section 40: So long as a quorum is present, business may be conducted. One could consider a recusal an abstention and the motion can proceed so long as a meeting quorum is maintained throughout. I'm grateful for your expertise (and patience).

The question at hand involves members who have an interest in the question. For instance - the Task Force is voting to award funds to third-party organizations and the members who are recusing themselves serve on the boards of the third-party organization. So - Quorum is 6 (4 members are absent). Motion (with 2 recusals) would have 4 members voting.

As above. I have a 10 member Task Force. 6 members are present, but 2 present members must recuse themselves from a motion. What should happen? The meeting has quorum, but only 4 can vote on the motion. Can the motion proceed or must it be tabled?

@George Mervosh When you say, "The Council votes...." What does that look like? Would I (as the chair) say, something like, "We have two nominations, Mr X and Mr Y. I will bring each to the floor for a vote. Who is in favor of Mr. X? " Assuming he doesn't get a majority, I move on to Mr. Y., right? If the first vote gets a majority, am I obligated to bring the second nomination up for a vote?

First off, this forum is A-M-A-Z-I-N-G! Thank you all. So, our Mayor resigned and we're in a position now to select a new Mayor from the remaining members on the Council. We are rotating the chairmanship of our regular Council meetings. It's my turn this evening. So - there are two members who wish to stand for Mayor. As the chair of the meeting how do I handle nominations? Do I ask for nominations from the body (e.g. anyone wishing to stand for Mayor may nominate themselves)? Thanks so much in advance. Not for nothing, I suspect I'm wrong but here is how I was thinking of handling it: Call meeting to Order and handle routine business. When we get to the "Mayor" agenda item I would say, "We are in a position where we need to select a new Mayor. Is there any member present who wishes to be considered?" Go around the table (two will raise their hands). As a courtesy give each member the floor to explain why they think they should be Mayor. The chair will now entertain motions for nominations to be interim mayor. Accept any motions that come and are seconded. Discuss as normal. Call for a vote. (If candidate fails to get a majority, repeat #4 and #5).

I recently attended a meeting of a public body that is bound by an Open Meetings law. Due to lack of a quorum the meeting was rescheduled for 24 hours later by a city official. An issue arose where an attendee and non-member of the body spoke up and announced that the second meeting was in violation of the Open Meetings law because the agenda wasn't posted a full 24 hours in advance (this is true it was posted with slight modifications fewer than 24h in advance). So here's the question: The meeting is called to order on the second day, there is a quorum present and the non-member insists on being heard to say, "Point of order, Mr. Chairman. This meeting cannot proceed because it is in violation of [the law]. The agenda was not posted long enough in advance." Setting aside the relatively trivial nature of the violation, how should the chair have responded? My thinking: The Chair say, "Mr. Non-member, you are not a member of the body and the floor is not open to public comment. You point of order is not well taken." Or In deference to the fact that a law is potentially being broken and the stature of the person making the ruckus the chair could say something like, "Sir, you are out of order and the floor is not open to public comment. In deference to your being a community member, the chair will hear your concern if you can be brief." {{Concern is stated}} "Sir, your point is not well taken, but given the fact that the nature of your complaint involves this body potentially violating a law, I will entertain a motion from this body to adjourn the meeting. Do I hear such a motion?" Thoughts, better ways to handle this?