venushka

On 9/8/2022 at 11:08 AM, Richard Brown said:

It might be that the former board ceded more authority to the attorney than it should have and that they simply acquiesced in letting him have more control over the agenda Then he should have had. They might have preferred it  that way because they trusted his judgment in that regard. Perhaps they did not want to be bothered with having to set the agenda.

it might just be that if these new board members want to exercise more control over the agenda that they need to advise the attorney they (the board members) want to control the agenda and that they want his role to just be more advisory in nature.  In other words, this practice might have just developed over time because former board members were happy with it that way. He might be perfectly agreeable with leading the board take more control over the agenda.

Has he been asked about it?

Thank you for your reply.

You have hit the nail on the head. The former board allowed the attorney to walk all over them. The attorney speaks and behaves as though she is the company's executive. She actually reprimanded us, at a board meeting, in front of the public, telling us that she would not tolerate our behavior. This was after a board member used "colorful" language during the previous meeting. He had resigned and wasn't even in attendance at the time of the tongue-lashing.

As far as I am concerned, she has dug herself a hole too deep to climb out of.

Thank you both.

All but one of our board members are newly elected and we are seeing some things that we think are unusual, the least of which is the attorney instructing that items be added to the agenda.

We are looking at options for a new attorney.

Should the attorney representing a public board have the option to add an item to the agenda?