cpnet Posted March 8, 2012 at 06:46 PM Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 at 06:46 PM The Organization I'm a part of has monthly luncheons. These luncheons have a limited number of attendees and typically 'sell-out'. Members must pay to attend these luncheons (non-members can also attend if there's spots available and they pay a higher admission fee).Our Board is claiming that these luncheons also serve as our General Meetings. However by my reading of RONR, limitting attendence, and charging admission violates Members' rights to attend, vote and call for motions. Can a luncheon or other event with limited attendance and/or an admission fee qualify as a General Meeting?Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted March 8, 2012 at 08:06 PM Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 at 08:06 PM No. To be a formal General Meeting, notice has to be sent out and all members have the right to attend without a fee. These luncheons are just informal meetings or get togethers, not legal meetings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpnet Posted March 9, 2012 at 01:03 AM Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 at 01:03 AM Thanks Rev Ed, that's my understanding too. Are there any Registered Professional Parliamentarians and/or authors of RONR that are able to confirm this? The reason is that our Board is claiming that a Registered Professional Parliamentarian has told them that limited, paid attendance meetings can qualify as General Meetings.I'd also like to be crystal clear that either charging admisson or limiting admission invalidate a meeting as a General Meeting. Both circumstances seem to violate a Members' absolute* right to vote and attend meetings (for Members not currently subject to discipline). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 9, 2012 at 01:49 AM Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 at 01:49 AM Top of p. 572 says No assessments (beyond dues) unless they are in the bylaws - charging to be at a meeting (even if the assessment just goes to the restaurant) is certainly an "assessment".I'd ask the Board to explain where they got the parliamentarian and how they reconcile their "limited meeting" with a member's right to attend all association meetings - p. 3, line 3-4.Is that sufficient "confirmation"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpnet Posted March 9, 2012 at 05:41 PM Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 at 05:41 PM Hi JDStackpole,I sent our Board the quote from p 3-4 a couple of weeks ago (they don't seem to have any familiarity with RONR)!!! They initially agreed with me that their luncheons could not qualify as General Meetings. However they had a governance meeting a couple of days ago with this Professional Parliamentarian and he (apparently) told them otherwise. While I have not yet confirmed with the Parliamentarian exactly what he said (I'm in the process of donig that), I do have it from a fairly reliable source that this is what he has said.This is a very complicated situation. The Parliamentarian was referred by the governing body for our organization. Our Board has been involved in some ugly business and members have been fighting for transparency and resolution for some time. In late 2011 we (members) actually hired this Parliamentarian ourselves to help us conduct a fair Special General Meeting that we asked for by petition according to our bylaws. At that time the Board refused to allow him to participate but we had hoped to call for a motion at this 2011 meeting to ask the Parliamentarian to help officiate. Anyway, at this General Meeting, members were not allowed to vote on the Agenda or call for any motions. Our Board read a prepared statement and left immediately. While we thought this was incorrect procedure, the Parliamentarian at that time told us this was not incorrect procedure. At that time, none of us Members were familiar enough with RONR to debate this. Since them, I've tried to become familar with RONR. The stuff the Parliamentarian said then and is saying now seems quite contrary to RONR. However, our Board is eager to believe what the Parliamentarian is saying so I basically need a more authoritative source than this Parliamentarian weighing in if I'm going to get the Board to obey the RONR rules. Our Board has been doing everything it can to limit Member access to information, and to control Members' ability to call for 'unvetted' Motions, and/or to have enough Members at a Meeting to vote in a way unfavorable to particular Directors. I and some other Members are trying to get our Board to follow RONR so that Members can have their say withing the bounds of RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 9, 2012 at 07:07 PM Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 at 07:07 PM If your parliamentarian claims to have any proper "qualifications" such as "Certified" "Professional" or "Registered" (or any combination thereof) check with the AIP or NAP (see below) to see if he/she is on their Certified/Registered lists.If not, he is a fraud.Contact either (or both) the ...National Association of Parliamentarians213 South Main St.Independence, MO 64050-3850Phone: 888-627-2929Fax: 816-833-3893; e-mail: hq@NAP2.org <<www.parliamentarians.org>>orAmerican Institute of Parliamentarians550M Ritchie Highway #271Severna Park, MD 21146Phone: 888-664-0428Fax: 410-544-4640e-mail: aip@aipparl.org<<www.aipparl.org>>for a reference or information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 9, 2012 at 07:11 PM Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 at 07:11 PM ... if I'm going to get the Board to obey the RONR rules.Our Board has been doing everything it can to limit Member access to information, and to control Members' ability to call for 'unvetted' Motions, and/or to have enough Members at a Meeting to vote in a way unfavorable to particular Directors. I and some other Members are trying to get our Board to follow RONR so that Members can have their say withing the bounds of RONR.RONR can be viewed as a book of etiquette, for people to use to see how to behave, but only if they WANT to behave. If they don't want to behave, the book isn't going to help (with the possible exception of Chapter XX).You, alone or even with just "some other" member, probably won't be able to get the Board to "reform". That will be up to a majority of your membership to hold their feet to the fire (or their noses to the book - whatever!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 9, 2012 at 07:37 PM Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 at 07:37 PM If your parliamentarian claims to have any proper "qualifications" such as "Certified" "Professional" or "Registered" (or any combination thereof) check with the AIP or NAP (see below) to see if he/she is on their Certified/Registered lists.If not, he is a fraud.Are you sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpnet Posted March 9, 2012 at 07:43 PM Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 at 07:43 PM RONR can be viewed as a book of etiquette, for people to use to see how to behave, but only if they WANT to behave. If they don't want to behave, the book isn't going to help (with the possible exception of Chapter XX).You, alone or even with just "some other" member, probably won't be able to get the Board to "reform". That will be up to a majority of your membership to hold their feet to the fire (or their noses to the book - whatever!).I hear you. It's just that with the Board claiming they are following correct process (in charging admission to limited attendance General Meetings, and selectively deciding which Motions they will allow at meetings), and with Members not being familiar with RONR, it's difficult to get a majority of Members to understand they are empowered to deal with the problems at the Board. My goal was to make it irrefutably crystal clear to the Board what their obligations are (given that our bylaws explicitly say that meetings must be conducted according to Robert's Rules). Then when all members can freely attend General Meetings, and can make appropriate motions, we'll hopefully be able to resolve the situation sooner, according to the wishes of the majority of members.As for the parliamentarian, he claims to be a "Registered Professional Parliamentarian", registered with the NAP. Unfortunately the NAP doesn't seem to provide a member directory. I do believe that he does have the certification he claims. I want to proceed very cautiously with this and clarify directly with the Parliamentarian what his advice to the Board was before I do anything to question his certification and/or approach the NAP about the validity of his advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 9, 2012 at 07:43 PM Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 at 07:43 PM Dan asked: "Are you sure? " back at #8.No.My apology for introducing a (yehcc) "legal" term into these august and refined surroundings.Serious question: to your knowledge has the AIP or NAP ever gone to court over a "non-professional" using one of their "professional" certifications, RP, PRP, CP or CPP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 9, 2012 at 07:48 PM Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 at 07:48 PM As for the parliamentarian, he claims to be a "Registered Professional Parliamentarian", registered with the NAP. I think the NAP will give you a simple Yes or No if you ask them if your man, by name, is indeed "registered". No need to deal with the quality (or otherwise) of his advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted March 9, 2012 at 07:55 PM Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 at 07:55 PM The Organization I'm a part of has monthly luncheons. These luncheons have a limited number of attendees and typically 'sell-out'....I would also be concerned about this aspect -- independent of the requirement to pay (which does sound like an additional assessment), holding a meeting in a venue where all members cannot come in if they want to (...sorry -- we're sold out...) isn't kosher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpnet Posted March 10, 2012 at 06:19 PM Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 at 06:19 PM I was able to get a list of local Registered Professional Parliamentarians from the NAP and confirmed that the Parliamentarian in question is registered. While the NAP provided me with a list, they said they would not comment on the Parliamentarian's advice. I also asked a couple of times about the process for complaining about a Parliamentarian's advice in the same emails, but they did not respond to those particular questions at all. Maybe the answer to those questions will arrive this coming week but I'm not optimistic about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.