Guest Barbara Posted July 28, 2012 at 02:20 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 02:20 PM Recently at a membership meeting of our Home Owners Association I noted a member recording everything with his Ipad. I have reason to believe this was done with malicious intent. Do I need to propose a by-law that states no member can record our private meetings without full approval of those present or does Roberts Rules already address this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted July 28, 2012 at 02:24 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 02:24 PM Do I need to propose a by-law that states no member can record our private meetings without full approval of those present or does Roberts Rules already address this?The behavior of persons in the meeting room (both members and non-members) is under the control of the assembly (the members present). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted July 28, 2012 at 02:29 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 02:29 PM The behavior of persons in the meeting room (both members and non-members) is under the control of the assembly (the members present).However, to answer Guest_Barbara's question, the society could adopt a rule (be it bylaws, or standing rule) that covers this for future meetings, yes? And of course, the procedures for adopting such a rule would need to be followed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted July 28, 2012 at 02:45 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 02:45 PM However, to answer Guest_Barbara's question, the society could adopt a rule (be it bylaws, or standing rule) that covers this for future meetings, yes?Yes, it could but it doesn't have to if all the assembly wants to do is tell this member to stop recording meetings. At a future meeting it might be helpful if the meeting is recorded and then they'd have to change the rule. In any case, the assembly can deal with the matter at hand without having to wait for a rule to be adopted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted July 28, 2012 at 02:47 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 02:47 PM She also could have raised a Point of Order that this member was recording the meeting without the assembly's consent. Hopefully the Chair would have ruled the Point Well Taken and ordered the member to switch off the recorder. That ruling (or any other way the Chair ruled) could be Appealed (RONR pp. 255-260) or the member could seek permission to continue recording the meeting.If after being ordered to switch off the recorder the member refused he could be subjected to disciplinary action (RONR pp. 645-648). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 28, 2012 at 04:20 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 04:20 PM This is a case where applicable procedural rules contained in state or local laws concerning the matter should be consulted for a fuller view of the association's authority, and an attorney should be consulted for a competent answer concerning the legality of preventing a member from recording the proceedings of such a meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 29, 2012 at 10:41 PM Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 at 10:41 PM She also could have raised a Point of Order that this member was recording the meeting without the assembly's consent. Hopefully the Chair would have ruled the Point Well Taken and ordered the member to switch off the recorder. That ruling (or any other way the Chair ruled) could be Appealed (RONR pp. 255-260) or the member could seek permission to continue recording the meeting.On what basis would the chair rule that the point of order is well taken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 30, 2012 at 12:17 AM Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 at 12:17 AM On what basis would the chair rule that the point of order is well taken?. . . on the basis of being mistaken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted July 30, 2012 at 01:32 AM Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 at 01:32 AM On what basis would the chair rule that the point of order is well taken?Because the assembly has the right to control its hall and the member was recording the meeting without the assembly's permission. If a Point of Order isn't the right tool to use for the assembly to re-exert control over the hall what would be the correct tool? I suppose a motion could be made and adopted to order the member to stop recording but while the question is pending the recorder would keep on going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 30, 2012 at 01:36 AM Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 at 01:36 AM Because the assembly has the right to control its hall and the member was recording the meeting without the assembly's permission. If a Point of Order isn't the right tool to use for the assembly to re-exert control over the hall what would be the correct tool? I suppose a motion could be made and adopted to order the member to stop recording but while the question is pending the recorder would keep on going.I believe the heart of Shmuel's point is that RONR doesn't have a rule prohibiting the recording of meetings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted July 30, 2012 at 02:05 AM Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 at 02:05 AM I believe the heart of Shmuel's point is that RONR doesn't have a rule prohibiting the recording of meetings.Fair enough. However, RONR says that the assembly has a right to control its hall and it would seem that someone recording the meeting without their permission would mean that they have lost a bit of their control over the hall and thus a Point of Order would be proper. Maybe there is a tool that is more appropriate to get the recorder shut off immediately but I don't know what it might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 30, 2012 at 02:07 AM Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 at 02:07 AM Because the assembly has the right to control its hall and the member was recording the meeting without the assembly's permission. If a Point of Order isn't the right tool to use for the assembly to re-exert control over the hall what would be the correct tool? I suppose a motion could be made and adopted to order the member to stop recording but while the question is pending the recorder would keep on going.How does the member's recording of the meeting take away from the assembly's control of the hall?Suppose a member comes to the meeting wearing a sombrero. Would you say that the chair can make a ruling on a point of order that the member must remove the sombrero, thereby "re-exerting control over the hall" because the member didn't have permission to be wearing a sombrero? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 30, 2012 at 02:15 AM Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 at 02:15 AM How does the member's recording of the meeting take away from the assembly's control of the hall?Suppose a member comes to the meeting wearing a sombrero. Would you say that the chair can make a ruling on a point of order that the member must remove the sombrero, thereby "re-exerting control over the hall" because the member didn't have permission to be wearing a sombrero?Maybe at the Alamo. I'd love to serve as parliamentarian during any meeting where that point of order was made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted July 30, 2012 at 02:50 AM Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 at 02:50 AM If I saw someone walk into the meeting wearing a sombrero I would probably raise a Point of Order that the assembly surely would be disturbed by seeing that (I know i would). RONR doesn't exactly define what "controlling its hall" means besides deciding whether members (through disciplinary action) and nonmembers (or a subset of them) are permitted to attend or remain so it ultimately would be up to the assembly to determine what sort of control they want to exert on the hall. I suppose I can understand your point but there seems to be a vast difference between someone wanting to dress like a Mariachi (which is a loud and obvious action) without getting the assembly's permission first as opposed to someone recording the meeting (which can be done quite easily without anyone knowing) without getting permission first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RHW Posted July 30, 2012 at 01:44 PM Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 at 01:44 PM In reply to post#6 from Tim Wynn--I think a greater concern is the legality of recording individuals without their knowledge or assent rather than the legality of barring said recording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 30, 2012 at 02:19 PM Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 at 02:19 PM In reply to post#6 from Tim Wynn--I think a greater concern is the legality of recording individuals without their knowledge or assent rather than the legality of barring said recording.But the same response applies. An attorney should be consulted for a competent answer concerning the legality of recording individuals without their knowledge or assent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.