Members Attending Board Meetings

[Guest Guest -- Cherries]

I am a member in good standing in a parent group. I choose to attend a board meeting and was allowed to make a presentation. After the presentation I was asked to leave. I said I wished to remain and was told that was not customary. A discussion followed in which I said as a member in good standing I had the right to observe the board meeting and the board essentially said board meetings are closed. I told the board that I was not sure they had the right to vote to close the meeting, but that I that if they wanted me to leave they would have to vote to close the meeting. At that point I was allowed to stay.

Questions:

1. Where in Roberts Rules does it say that members in good standing may attend, but not speak during, board meetings?

2. Where in Roberts Rules are courtesy seats addressed?

3. What is the purpose of a courtesy seat?

4. If a member wishes to attend a meeting, but a courtesy seat is not offered must the member leave?

5. Under what, if any, circumstances may a member in good standing be required to leave a board meeting?

Thank you.

Cherries

[Gary c Tesser]

View PostGuest -- Cherries, on 10 August 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

I am a member in good standing in a parent group. I choose to attend a board meeting and was allowed to make a presentation. After the presentation I was asked to leave. I said I wished to remain and was told that was not customary. A discussion followed in which I said as a member in good standing I had the right to observe the board meeting and the board essentially said board meetings are closed. I told the board that I was not sure they had the right to vote to close the meeting, but that I that if they wanted me to leave they would have to vote to close the meeting. At that point I was allowed to stay.

Questions:

1. Where in Roberts Rules does it say that members in good standing may attend, but not speak during, board meetings?

No, it doesn't say that at all Your group's bylaws, or a statute, might say otherwise -- in which case, that would govern, superseding Robert's Rules -- but if not, Robert's Rules says that any group's nmeting -- in your instance, the board's meeting -- has complete control of the room. The can allow yo to stay, or require you to leave. They can allow you to speak, or they can allow you to be silent. -- Note tha this is what the group decides, by a vote or unanimous consent -- no board member on his own can tell you what do.

Quote

2 and 3.. Where in Roberts Rules are courtesy seats addressed?

I never heard of such a thing. And it's nowhere in Robert's Rules. Where did you hear of it?

Quote

3. What is the purpose of a courtesy seat?

4. If a member wishes to attend a meeting, but a courtesy seat is not offered must the member leave?

Setting aside the technical question of what a courtesy seat is -- I might have an inkling, but I would need to be sure: at a board meeting, only members of the board are entitled to attend; and the board can invite, or bar, anyone it wishes to.

Quote

5. Under what, if any, circumstances may a member in good standing be required to leave a board meeting?

Any time the board (a majority, not any individual member, even the presiding officer, unless the non-board-member is disorderly) the board chooses to.

Quote

Thank you.

Cherries

You're welcome. And Cherries, you don't post here often enough lately.

[Gary c Tesser]

I give up.

[Trina]

I am a member in good standing in a parent group. I choose to attend a board meeting and was allowed to make a presentation. After the presentation I was asked to leave. I said I wished to remain and was told that was not customary. A discussion followed in which I said as a member in good standing I had the right to observe the board meeting and the board essentially said board meetings are closed. I told the board that I was not sure they had the right to vote to close the meeting, but that I that if they wanted me to leave they would have to vote to close the meeting. At that point I was allowed to stay.

Questions:

1. Where in Roberts Rules does it say that members in good standing may attend, but not speak during, board meetings?

2. Where in Roberts Rules are courtesy seats addressed?

3. What is the purpose of a courtesy seat?

4. If a member wishes to attend a meeting, but a courtesy seat is not offered must the member leave?

5. Under what, if any, circumstances may a member in good standing be required to leave a board meeting?

Thank you.

Cherries

If you are not a member of the body that is meeting (that body is the board in your story), then RONR confers no rights on you whatsoever, your membership in the 'parent organization' notwithstanding.

Mr. Tesser has responded to your individual questions, and his answers are clear (despite his misfortune with the formatting of the response, and consequent frustration with the forum software's ongoing refusal to let him edit his posts).

[Guest Guest Cherries]

Thank you for your response. BTW this was the first time I posted here.

As to courtesy seats, I too had never heard of them until joining this group. Yes, your educated guess was correct. Nonboard members are given courtesy seats to be able to be present, but not to speak.

I have a hard time accepting that in a membership-driven group the same members don't have the right to attend/to listen to board meetings. I mean school board meetings, county supervisor meetings, my house of worship's governing bodies are all open. Why should a parent group's board be able to close its meetings to its dues paying members?

[Guest Edgar]

I have a hard time accepting that in a membership-driven group the same members don't have the right to attend/to listen to board meetings. I mean school board meetings, county supervisor meetings, my house of worship's governing bodies are all open. Why should a parent group's board be able to close its meetings to its dues paying members?

Many municipal and quasi-public bodies are subject to so-called "Open Meeting" or "Sunshine" laws. Most private organizations are not. Your organization is free (subject to any applicable laws) to adopt rules which, for example, would require that all board meetings be open to all members of the organization. Just be careful what you wish for.

[jstackpo]

All but your church meetings are meetings of legally public bodies which may be subject to sunshine laws.

Your church may have a special sunshine rule, too, but don't count on it.

Here's what you might try (if you have enough friends): Next regular meeting move that the board meeting minutes be "produced and read to the ... assembly" -- P. 487. That might surprise them...

[Trina]

Thank you for your response. BTW this was the first time I posted here.

As to courtesy seats, I too had never heard of them until joining this group. Yes, your educated guess was correct. Nonboard members are given courtesy seats to be able to be present, but not to speak.

I have a hard time accepting that in a membership-driven group the same members don't have the right to attend/to listen to board meetings. I mean school board meetings, county supervisor meetings, my house of worship's governing bodies are all open. Why should a parent group's board be able to close its meetings to its dues paying members?

If it is a membership-driven group, presumably the general membership has the right to amend the bylaws. The membership could adopt a rule that all board meetings be open to the general membership. Also, as Dr. Stackpole points out, the general membership, at a meeting, has the authority to give a variety of instructions to its board -- including an instruction to read the minutes of any board meeting the general membership would like to hear about.

And it's not really a question of, "Why should a parent group's board be able to close its meetings" -- from a RONR point of view, meetings are only for members, so the board doesn't have to take any action to close its meetings to nonmembers. Closed would be the normal (default) condition. Action would be required to go from the normal state (board members only) to the state you want (general members allowed to sit in).

[Guest Edgar]

Closed would be the normal (default) condition.

I think that's certainly true of executive sessions but, I think, perhaps not otherwise.

[Guest Guest Cherries]

Many municipal and quasi-public bodies are subject to so-called "Open Meeting" or "Sunshine" laws. Most private organizations are not. Your organization is free (subject to any applicable laws) to adopt rules which, for example, would require that all board meetings be open to all members of the organization. Just be careful what you wish for.

As I wrote about it the thought did cross my mind that public bodies might be subject to different requirements than nongovernmental bodies. Thank you.

[Guest Guest Cherries]

More questions:

1. Must nonboard members be granted permission to attend and to listen to board meetings? Or are they allowed to attend and to listen until there is a majority vote to close the meeting? May a vote be taken to close a meeting to some but not others. In other words may a board vote to exclude some, while allowing others to remain?

2. Regarding a request for minutes to be read, presumeably at a general membership meeting a majority vote in support of the minutes being read would have to necessary, right? A single member simply cannot ask for the minutes to be read.

3. Regarding financial records, how does a member request a copy of a bank statement? May the board deny a request by a single member? In other words are financial records closed to the general members unless a majority vote is taken by the body?

[Guest Edgar]

1. Must nonboard members be granted permission to attend and to listen to board meetings? Or are they allowed to attend and to listen until there is a majority vote to close the meeting? May a vote be taken to close a meeting to some but not others. In other words may a board vote to exclude some, while allowing others to remain?

Trina and I appear to disagree on the answer to the first part of your question. I tend to think that non-members can attend unless the board tells them they can't. Trina apparently (and not without good reason) thinks non-members can't attend unless the board says they can. In any case, the attendance of non-members is up to the board.

And, yes, the board is free to invite some non-members while excluding others.

Note that a meeting held in executive session reverses the default (at least in my opinion). That is, when a meeting is held in executive session, non-members are excluded unless specifically invited to remain. Otherwise (in my opinion) non-members may attend unless instructed to leave.

[Gary c Tesser]

I was kidding before about Guest Cherries not posting lately: I was pretty sure I had never seen that name as a poster before. But if it takes more questions to get Guest_Guest-Cherries to post again, then bravo for more questions.

1. Well, that's kinda iffy.

2. No, it takes a 2/3 vote.

3. Nobody is entitled to a copy, unless you adopt a rule that says so. Members -- yes, a request by a single member -- are entitled to examine the records.

[Guest Edgar]

Members -- yes, a request by a single member -- are entitled to examine the records.

The records? Or just the minutes.

[Gary c Tesser]

Great Steaming Cobnuts, that guy types fast.

[Gary c Tesser]

The records? Or just the minutes.

I do think so. Clarifications in the 11th Edition. Lemme flip pages a coupla minutes. Try to repress your post-count a little.

[Gary c Tesser]

Okay, I got p. 459, #4, tha the secretary is "to make the minutes and records available to members upon request." I right now forget where I saw (hallucinated) about the treasurer's records.

[Rev Ed]

Many municipal and quasi-public bodies are subject to so-called "Open Meeting" or "Sunshine" laws. Most private organizations are not. Your organization is free (subject to any applicable laws) to adopt rules which, for example, would require that all board meetings be open to all members of the organization. Just be careful what you wish for.

Even with municipal and quasi-public bodies the members of the group (i.e. the councillors) have the right to hold part of their meeting in Executive Session (i.e. private) to discuss sensitive issues - potential or actual lawsuits for example.

And yes, I concur that you might be wise to be careful what you asked for. There are issues that the Board has to discuss in private. Not everthing is a public issue.

[Guest Cherries]

Regarding what is the normal default situation is for nonboard members attending board meetings, I checked with a parliamentarian at the national parent group to which I belong.

According to her, if the board is silent on the issue (doesn't take a vote to allow the nonmember to stay) then the nonmember may stay. I view this as "backwards" because I consider meetings open unless a vote is taken to close the meeting. I find it "wierd" that the actual vote is to have the meeting be open, but actually if a vote isn't taken the meeting is open. In essence the vote/motion/question is "Is the nonmember allowed to stay?" as opposed to "Should the meeting be closed for this person?"

Thoughts? Reactions?

For those of you wondering how this issue was raised,.... I attended a board meeting to make a presentation. When the presentation was finished the president "thanked" me and said I could leave. I expressed interest in staying. The president said that was not how things were done. I acknowledged members rarely, if ever, attended board meetings but that I wanted to. A tense 10 minute discussion followed regarding whether or not I could stay. Finally I told them if they wanted me to leave they would have to vote to close the meeting. They were shocked that I would push the issue and decided not to vote, so I stayed. I hate I had to ruin relationships in order to stay, but this groups needs to learn the importance of transparency.

Cherries

[Guest Edgar]

According to her, if the board is silent on the issue (doesn't take a vote to allow the nonmember to stay) then the nonmember may stay. I view this as "backwards" because I consider meetings open unless a vote is taken to close the meeting.

Sounds like there's no disagreement there.

[sMargaret]

For those of you wondering how this issue was raised,.... I attended a board meeting to make a presentation. When the presentation was finished the president "thanked" me and said I could leave. I expressed interest in staying. The president said that was not how things were done. I acknowledged members rarely, if ever, attended board meetings but that I wanted to. A tense 10 minute discussion followed regarding whether or not I could stay. Finally I told them if they wanted me to leave they would have to vote to close the meeting. They were shocked that I would push the issue and decided not to vote, so I stayed. I hate I had to ruin relationships in order to stay, but this groups needs to learn the importance of transparency.

Cherries, there does seem to be some interesting issues going on here with personalities, given the president "thanked" you.

However, I will note that had I been chairing the organization, I would have kicked you out of the meeting so that you could learn the importance of being a member of the organization that is meeting. The general membership has power over the board, and can vote to open board meetings. An individual general member does not have such power, unless specified in the bylaws.

There are a number of very valid reasons to only have members attend meetings. Taking a vote to allow a non-member to stay, in a non-public meeting, seems perfectly appropriate.

[Guest Edgar]

I will note that had I been chairing the organization, I would have kicked you out of the meeting so that you could learn the importance of being a member of the organization that is meeting.

By what authority?

[tctheatc]

I tend to think that non-members can attend unless the board tells them they can't.

I consider meetings open unless a vote is taken to close the meeting. I find it "wierd" that the actual vote is to have the meeting be open, but actually if a vote isn't taken the meeting is open.

FWIW, I cannot wrap my mind around the concept that a meeting is open until there is a vote to make it closed. Only members have rights to attend meetings. Beyond that, a non-member becomes entitled to attend at the pleasure/will of the assembly. In the original case a non-member was there (apparently at the will of the board) to make a presentation. I can see in this case that non-member assuming she continues to be welcome until action is taken to the contrary. But the notion that meetings are open to non-members unless there is a specific vote to exclude them seems to be going too far. I simply cannot imagine a group of non-members walking into a board meeting and expecting they have a right to be there until someone says no. It makes more sense to me that they have to seek permission to attend.

[sMargaret]

By the authority, and the responsibility, of being the chair.

From RONR (10th edition, as don't have 11th at hand):

PROTECTION FROM ANNOYANCE BY NONMEMBERS IN A MEETING; REMOVAL OF AN OFFENDER FROM THE HALL. Any nonmembers allowed in the hall during a meeting, as guests of the organization, have no rights with reference to the proceedings. An assembly has the right to protect itself from annoyance by nonmembers, and its full authority in this regard - as distinguished from cases involving disorderly members - can be exercised by the chair acting alone. The chair has the power to require nonmembers to leave the hall, or to order their removal, at any time during the meeting; and the nonmembers have no right of appeal from such an order of the presiding officer. However, such an order may be appealed by a member.

[Guest Cherries]

Cherries, there does seem to be some interesting issues going on here with personalities, given the president "thanked" you.

However, I will note that had I been chairing the organization, I would have kicked you out of the meeting so that you could learn the importance of being a member of the organization that is meeting. The general membership has power over the board, and can vote to open board meetings. An individual general member does not have such power, unless specified in the bylaws.

There are a number of very valid reasons to only have members attend meetings. Taking a vote to allow a non-member to stay, in a non-public meeting, seems perfectly appropriate.

sMargaret,

That's an interesting perspective, and I appreciate you sharing it. Please know that I have served 4 years as an officer on this board. During that 4 year period I do not recall one board meeting at which I would have felt the need to vote to exclude a member. My husband has 6 years of service as an officer. Even when we are not officers we volunteer with the group and remain very involved. I value transparency, which is one reason I generally prefer meetings -- board and general membership -- to be open. I do understand some groups may need to close certain meetings, but I'm of the opinion this group benefits from inclusion and openess.

Cherrries