"rights of members"

[chinafleet]

Our organizations Board meetings have not been declared as executive and often have had non Board members presnt, if not participating. Recently a Board member was asked by a member a question about business conducted at the Board meeting. The issue was not secret, had aleady been discussed at a general meeting. The Board member answered and now half the board is going for the throat for violating the secresy of the Board. We were told (by a professional parliamentarian) that if a member ask a question, even on 'special meetings' a Board member may answer what was done but not to quote any Board member? I cannot find that in my book?

Thanks,

Ruth

[David A Foulkes]

I cannot find that in my book?

Nope, can't find it in mine either. Maybe you oughta ask that professional parliamentarian to show you where it says that in his book! (Is he charging for his services?)

Yes, meetings held in Executive Session are "secret" in the sense that the content of such meetings is not to be revealed. So, if the general member asked the board member a question about something that was discussed or addressed in a previous Board meeting that was in fact held in Executive Session, and that Board member divulged some "secret" content from that meeting, then you may have a problem. But so far, it's not clear by what you've provided what the exact circumstances were.

[chinafleet]

Nope, think that was a 'freebie" .;-) Do the members of a non profit have any rights to information from the Baord and if so what are the guidelines for members and the Board?

[chinafleet]

excuse me.Board.

[chinafleet]

The issue that was discussed was concerning a donation being made to our organization. It was announced at the general meeting a few weeks earlier. Some of the Board members had discussed it (after the general announcement)with members of a subcommittee as the donation came with some restrictions. After the Board meeting a member of the subcommittee asked about the issue and, in fact, stated to the Board member the actions the subcommittee had already determined.

Now, some Board members are irate that the Board member would discuss private Board business.

[David A Foulkes]

Now, some Board members are irate that the Board member would discuss private Board business.

What makes them think it was "private" board business? If it wasn't handled under Executive Session, then there is no provision in RONR that prevents that board member from discussing it with anyone. This is not to say it may not have been his best moment, and he may pay a price for it come election time. But otherwise, nothing so far indicates he has violated any rule.

[chinafleet]

They seem to have a made a self imposed rule that "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas"- forgetting it was already public and the ones on the attack are the ones that had already discussed it outside the organization and in a non board subcommittee. So it appears the rule (not policy) is only for some?

[Dan Honemann]

Our organizations Board meetings have not been declared as executive and often have had non Board members presnt, if not participating. Recently a Board member was asked by a member a question about business conducted at the Board meeting. The issue was not secret, had aleady been discussed at a general meeting. The Board member answered and now half the board is going for the throat for violating the secresy of the Board. We were told (by a professional parliamentarian) that if a member ask a question, even on 'special meetings' a Board member may answer what was done but not to quote any Board member? I cannot find that in my book?

Thanks,

Ruth

"But in debate on any written or oral report in the assembly, any member of the reporting committee who does not concur has the same right as any other member of the assembly to speak individually in opposition. No one can make allusion in the assembly to what has occurred during the deliberations of the committee, however, unless it is by report of the committee or by unanimous consent." (RONR, 10th ed., pp. 510-11).

[J. J.]

"But in debate on any written or oral report in the assembly, any member of the reporting committee who does not concur has the same right as any other member of the assembly to speak individually in opposition. No one can make allusion in the assembly to what has occurred during the deliberations of the committee, however, unless it is by report of the committee or by unanimous consent." (RONR, 10th ed., pp. 510-11).

Except that this does not appear to be during debate or "in the assembly."

BTW: My version of "What happened in Vegas ... " is "What happened in Altoona, stays in Altoona."

[Gary Novosielski]

Except that this does not appear to be during debate or "in the assembly."

And what was reported on was, I thought, a board meeting, not a committee meeting. Attempting to apply committee rules to boards and vice versa is fraught with danger, n'est-ce pas?

[chinafleet]

It wasn't in debate or assembly. Sequence of events leading to this:(in oerder)

1)At a regulary scheduled genmeral meeting (monthly) a Board member read a letter of intent for a sizable donation to an annual event hosted by two seperate groups.

2) at a meeting of a special committee comprised of some Board members of both organizations the terms of the donation were discussed

3) at the next regular Board meeting of the first group 3 Board members who had attended the joint meeting announced that the two organizations had decided they wanted part of the donation terms more clearly defined. They also gave a board member, who had received and announced to group 1 the news of the donation, permission to share the news of the doantion with the Board of the second group to be shared with their members.

4)Board member who made the original announcement contacted a Board member of the second group to ensure she wanted the info.

5) another board member of the first group is now accuing the first one of 'broadcasting club business' to "members " of the second group. and violating policy of what happenns in "Altoona" ;-)

It has escalated to calls for resignation and censure-

of course not one person- inclusing the President- has bothered to call the so called offender for input.

So things are imploding over an issue that 1) was already public and permission to discuss was given and 2) the accusers had already discussed it with the other person involved and 3) the third party was entitled to the knowledge as they are involved equally in the event. No investigation of the allegations.

[chinafleet]

Sorry- as a terrible typist I should have used spell check

[David A Foulkes]

Sorry- as a terrible typist I should have used spell check

Weave scene wurst!

[chinafleet]

Thank you- that was gracious!

[Dan Honemann]

And what was reported on was, I thought, a board meeting, not a committee meeting. Attempting to apply committee rules to boards and vice versa is fraught with danger, n'est-ce pas?

With apologies to Ruth for prolonging this apparently irrelevant discussion, I note that, although there are some differences between the rules applicable to boards and those applicable to committees, there are not too many of them, and in some instances they may hardly exist at all (as noted on page 473, lines 5-8). In any event, I think that there should be no doubt but that the rule quoted in post #8 from pages 510-11 applies with equal force with respect to reports of boards as well as committees.

[Shmuel Gerber]

"But in debate on any written or oral report in the assembly, any member of the reporting committee who does not concur has the same right as any other member of the assembly to speak individually in opposition. No one can make allusion in the assembly to what has occurred during the deliberations of the committee, however, unless it is by report of the committee or by unanimous consent." (RONR, 10th ed., pp. 510-11).

Does that mean that direct quotations are required?

[Tim Wynn]

Does that mean that direct quotations are required?

Funny.