Janis Arnold

Hi Rob, Thanks for that perspective. The 'agenda' is actually about realizing that with the member absent that submitted the motions, they won't have enough votes to get it passed. This is a small school board so they don't have internal legal counsel to ask and wouldn't engage legal for this type of issue. They have to interpret their by-laws (absent in this case), look to RONR and ask their association for an opinion (me). Josh's earlier response will likely help them get through. thanks for weighing in - appreciated. Janis

Hi, A school board trustee submitted 3 notice of motions for an upcoming meeting (first meeting). The Chair and Admin reviewed the agenda, it was set, sent to the full board and made public. The trustee subsequently came forward and asked for the motions to be taken off the agenda and moved to the next meeting because they won't be present at the first meeting. Is it best dealt with by having another trustee make a motion at the first meeting, to amend the agenda by moving the 3 motions to a subsequent meeting? Or can the original trustee just ask for the motions to be taken off prior to the first meeting? Thanks Janis

Thank you. For clarification, RONR says and I think you're saying "To rescind is identical with the motion to amend something previously adopted, by striking out the entire by-law, rule, resolution, section, or paragraph, and is subject to all the limitations as to notice an vote that may be placed by the rules on similar amendments." Therefore a new motion to amend something previously adopted, need only mention the minor date and it's not necessary to strike out the entire lengthy resolution? For example, the motion could read "Be it resolved that resolution # 102/2022 stating the date of Sept 9, 2023 to open the library be amended to Aug. 31, 2025." Correct?

I work with a board that made a VERY lengthy motion about a year ago (8 'Whereas' and 5 'Be it resolved that...'). They want to change just one date in one of the 'Be it resolved that' sections. Is it easier and do they have to rescind the entire resolution and then make a new one that is exactly the same, EXCEPT with the new date, or is there an easier way to do it so it doesn't open up the whole resolution for debate again. The resolution had many issues it dealt with and was controversial with some board members voting against. The board doesn't want to address all items again as some are already being worked on.

Thanks Mr Gerber for pointing this out and thanks Mr. Kapur for remembering and reading into my question what was needed. Written in haste and should have included more details. Yes, our Canadian (and provincial) laws supersede RONR for our boards and get in the way of parliamentary procedure at times.

Thanks for confirmation.

Many of our school boards have in their by-laws that the Vice Chair, chair their Executive Sessions (in-camera). Is there something in RONR that speaks to this also?

Hello, I know that minutes are kept in perpetuity and resolutions should be 'stand-alone'. In other words, a resolution should be able to be understood without providing pages of background. Some of the resolutions may have been based on committee meetings. I don't believe in RONR there's any requirement to keep committee meeting notes for a particular period of time (e.g. like tax files :)) but rather I assume it's just a good governance practice to keep for a specified time and can be written into a board's by-laws. Correct? Thanks Janis

Thanks all for weighing in. It's a school board (public). They are governed by legislation but it doesn't go into the detail needed for this (process steps). After the legislation, they'd turn to their procedural by-law. It spells out some of the process but again it's not spelled out therefore they need to rely on their parliamentary authority, i.e. Robert's Rules. They need to be in executive session (in camera) to debate a confidential matter and then come out for the vote because legislation does say all votes MUST in public meetings. I read through Robert's Rules on Committee of the Whole and I wasn't clear if they had to start in a regular meeting but from what you've written above, it appears they must. Thank you

Can a meeting be scheduled to start with a Committee of the Whole meeting ? In other words, does a board have to start in a regular meeting (call to order etc) and then resolve itself into Committee of the Whole or can a board immediately call the meeting to order, as the Committee of the Whole? We have an upcoming scenario that would be: - start immediately with an Exec. session and Committee of the Whole (discussion of confidential issue is the first thing to deal with) - then rise and report in order to have a vote of the board in a public meeting. What is the proper sequence of motions to take this board through commencing the "in camera" meeting at the beginning and then ending in a public meeting for the vote? Thanks

Puzzlin' - yes, you're correct - it's been referred to the investigator (committee). These are all great solutions. Thanks everyone!

Gary Novosielski, yes, you have it right and I like your solution - if with the investigating committee, they can't take up the question until that's discharged.

Josh, I see what you mean by needing more information but I think you've unintentionally given me my answer by writing "No main motion is in order that conflicts with the corporate charter, constitution,......." and also "...doubtful that a motion to simply add an item to the agenda may be ruled out of order, but it may be possible to rule the item itself out of order when it comes up in the agenda". It's a difficult situation and a lawyer is already involved in the background. I hope to advise the Chair on steps he's allowed to take in the meeting and I think you've provided that.

A member of a school board wishes to add an item to the agenda. The item is related to a disciplinary issue that has been sent for investigation. If there is an appeal to the investigator's decision, it is the board that would hear the appeal. It's my understanding that an "out of order" motion can be made if it goes against the by-laws. The by-laws contain the agenda but can the motion to add to the agenda still be ruled out of order because it's about the board's mandate / role (board could become biased if hearing before the appeal) and not about the actual by-law? In other words, can there be an out of order motion when the motion goes against the work of the board or against something that isn't under its jurisdiction?

Richard, this was my reading on the issue as well. I only wondered if there was something that would prohibit it that I hadn't found. thanks for confirmation.

I have a 9 member board with a Chair and designated Vice-Chair. The Vice-Chair anticipated being ill and having to step away for parts of the meeting but wanted to remain when possible to participate in votes.. Can the Vice-Chair step out of their role for just one meeting but stay in the meeting as a regular member and participate in debates and votes? Is there another Section of RONR or is it in #58? Section 58 is silent on this so I assume the above is fine. Just designate another Vice-Chair and have the usual Vice-Chair stay in the meeting as a regular member. Thanks

Thanks Atul. I don't have specific by-laws to cite as (yes, it's school boards) we work for many and they all have different by-laws, it's just a general question. But perhaps a follow-up on what you wrote above '....as notice of motion is required under RONR, although that can be by-passed with a vote of the majority ......' If the school board voted to by-pass the notice with a 2/3's vote, then the by-law could pass at the same meeting, correct?

Is it correct that according to RONR, S55, a board would make up their own by-law, regarding a requirement for a number of readings before a by-law is introduced OR amended? For example, it may say in a board's by-laws that 3 readings are required. But if there is no such by-law, then there is no requirement for 3 readings (along with their prescribed specifications), therefore a new by-law or amendment could be passed on first go-round at a meeting?

Holding a hybrid meeting (virtual and in person) was addressed in an earlier question but as an additional one, IF the by-laws (and law in this case) permits hybrid meetings, I believe it is also possible to hold a portion of it as an executive session / in camera unless explicitly disallowed. Correct? It just requires a majority vote to go into Exec session.

Thank you for that answer. Just to clarify, is the proper process: - call regular / special meeting to order, make a motion to move into Exec session, have the in camera meeting, move to go back into regular / special meeting, adjourn regular / special meeting. Does it require all these motions?

Can a board convene an Executive Session immediately (i.e. call to order an in camera meeting) without starting first as a regular or a special meeting? Or do they have to start in regular or special and then have a motion to move into an Executive Session? If the latter, do they then move to come out of ES and then also adjourn the regular session? Thank you

Thank you George Mervosh. I did look at the link you sent but unfortunately this only refers to elected members and not their administration (the bureaucrats). From what you've sent however, I will assume that RRO does not have anything in that regard and it would be dealt with through the terms of their contract. In this case what the board member is unhappy with does not come close to the bar for even a reprimand, let alone dismissal.