"taping" board meeting

[Tim Wynn]

There's really no way to improve on post #2.

[Tim Wynn]

Thank you for sharing your opinion, we often disagree.

I was unaware of that.

Perhaps, the actual custom of the organization is to never object to someone recording a meeting, since, presumably, that has never happened before, either.

[J. J.]

I don't consider the fact that "someting has never been done before" to reasonably fall into the category of "a particular practice."

It would be one thing for the chair to make the members aware that the taping of the proceedings could be prevented by the assembly, but for the chair to pretend that recording a meeting is prohibited by RONR, due to the fact that it has never happened before, is the very definition of a stretch.

Portable tape recorders have been around for 45 years. That no one ever brought one to a meeting in that 45 year period is no stretch.

Further, the chair does not "pretend" it is a rule within RONR, but only states that within those 45 years, it has not been the practice to tape individual meetings. The chair simply notes that this is the practice of this particular assembly (or, conversely, notes that this has been the practice). Either decision is subject to appeal. The majority can ultimately make the decision on if this is custom or not.

Likewise, if the majority determines that this is, in fact, the custom, it can change that custom. It may do so either for that particular meeting, or for future meetings.

[Shmuel Gerber]

No, if there is no applicable rule or law that interferes with what Robert's states (or doesn't state in this case) you may only record the proceedings if the assembly allows you that priviledge. If the chair or assembly take action regarding the recording and orders you to turn-off the device, you're obligated to follow the order.

<edited 5:40 p.m.>

It seems to me that the only possible legitimate grounds in RONR for the chair to order a member to turn off a recording device is that its use is somehow inherently disturbing the assembly. But if you think that the rule against disturbing the assembly does not apply to the use of recorders, then the chair has no basis for ordering anyone to stop recording.

Suppose this were the question:

May someone other than the secretary take notes of what is being done during the meeting?

Would you say, "Only if the assembly allows that privilege"? If the chair orders you (a member of the assembly) to stop taking notes, are you obligated to follow the order?

[Tim Wynn]

It seems to me that the only possible legitimate grounds in RONR for the chair to order a member to turn off a recording device is that its use is somehow inherently disturbing the assembly. But if you think that the rule against disturbing the assembly does not apply to the use of recorders, then the chair has no basis for ordering anyone to stop recording.

Suppose this were the question:

May someone other than the secretary take notes of what is being done during the meeting?

Would you say, "Only if the assembly allows that privilege"? If the chair orders you (a member of the assembly) to stop taking notes, are you obligated to follow the order?

I still concur with George, and now I concur with Shmuel, too.

[Steven Britton]

It seems to me that the only possible legitimate grounds in RONR for the chair to order a member to turn off a recording device is that its use is somehow inherently disturbing the assembly. But if you think that the rule against disturbing the assembly does not apply to the use of recorders, then the chair has no basis for ordering anyone to stop recording.

Suppose this were the question:

May someone other than the secretary take notes of what is being done during the meeting?

Would you say, "Only if the assembly allows that privilege"? If the chair orders you (a member of the assembly) to stop taking notes, are you obligated to follow the order?

Thanks Shmuel, interesting answer and I hadn't thought about it that way: Then, would a rule regarding the use of pen and paper or a laptop computer for taking notes be a standing rule, akin to the illustration about using a recording device (p.265)?

[J. J.]

It seems to me that the only possible legitimate grounds in RONR for the chair to order a member to turn off a recording device is that its use is somehow inherently disturbing the assembly. But if you think that the rule against disturbing the assembly does not apply to the use of recorders, then the chair has no basis for ordering anyone to stop recording.

Suppose this were the question:

May someone other than the secretary take notes of what is being done during the meeting?

Would you say, "Only if the assembly allows that privilege"? If the chair orders you (a member of the assembly) to stop taking notes, are you obligated to follow the order?

Well, that would fall, broadly, under decorum. What would initially determine if this violates decorum, or not? The past practices of the assembly would determine that. If there were repeated taping of prior meetings, that produced no disruption, the chair should find that suddenly there is. If there has been no taping, that could easily indicate that everyone thought it would be disruptive.

And in answer to your question regarding notes, yes if there is nor rule or practice supporting it. It would be subject to appeal.

[Tim Wynn]

Well, that would fall, broadly, under decorum. What would initially determine if this violates decorum, or not? The past practices of the assembly would determine that. If there were repeated taping of prior meetings, that produced no disruption, the chair should find that suddenly there is. If there has been no taping, that could easily indicate that everyone thought it would be disruptive.

And in answer to your question regarding notes, yesif there is nor rule or practice supporting it. It would be subject to appeal.

I think the most important thing that this thread has proven is that J.J. is quite easily disturbed.

[J. J.]

I think the most important thing that this thread has proven is that J.J. is quite easily disturbed.

No, it is that the decision is really up to the majority. I think that I would be very disturbed that any suggestion that the decision be something other that the will of the majority.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Well, that would fall, broadly, under decorum. What would initially determine if this violates decorum, or not? The past practices of the assembly would determine that. If there were repeated taping of prior meetings, that produced no disruption, the chair should find that suddenly there is. If there has been no taping, that could easily indicate that everyone thought it would be disruptive.

And in answer to your question regarding notes, yes if there is nor rule or practice supporting it. It would be subject to appeal.

Suppose no member had ever before used the word "consequentially" in debate. Another member objects to the use of this word the first time it happens, claiming that it is disorderly. Does the "precedent" of this word never having been used before in debate serve as proof that there is something disorderly about it?

(If you say yes, I'm outta here. )

[Shmuel Gerber]

No, it is that the decision is really up to the majority. I think that I would be very disturbed that any suggestion that the decision be something other that the will of the majority.

J. J., I think that so far you are the only one who has suggested that the use of tape recorders can be placed beyond the reach of the will of a majority (other than by a bylaws amendment), by claiming that a rule governing their use would be a special rule of order, despite the reference that Mr. Britton gave way back in post #3 to show that it would be in the nature of a standing rule.

The real question is not whether the majority may decide, but what the proper basis for such a decision is. If a member claims that use of a recording device violates an existing rule, then a Point of Order, subject to an Appeal, is proper. But if there is no existing rule that would forbid using the recorder, then the chair has no right to rule the Point of Order well taken. If the assembly wishes to stop the recording, someone may Raise a Question of Privilege and move that the recording be stopped, or someone may move to adopt a rule on the subject. But until that happens, if it's not forbidden, that means it's permitted.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Thanks Shmuel, interesting answer and I hadn't thought about it that way: Then, would a rule regarding the use of pen and paper or a laptop computer for taking notes be a standing rule, akin to the illustration about using a recording device (p.265)?

Yes, I would say so.

[J. J.]

Suppose no member had ever before used the word "consequentially" in debate. Another member objects to the use of this word the first time it happens, claiming that it is disorderly. Does the "precedent" of this word never having been used before in debate serve as proof that there is something disorderly about it?

(If you say yes, I'm outta here. )

It would serve justification for the chair ruling so on a point of order, subject to appeal. Such things are by there nature judgment calls, and will differ from assembly to assembly.

Would using the word "niggardly" in debate be considered disorderly, if used properly within its dictionary meaning of stingy, e.g. "This assembly should not be niggardly in its support of education?" If the word had used without offense in the past, the chair should rule a point of order on it not well taken. If the word has never been used in the assembly, and a point of order is raised, the chair might find it disorderly, and take appropriate action, as some groups have done.

[J. J.]

J. J., I think that so far you are the only one who has suggested that the use of tape recorders can be placed beyond the reach of the will of a majority (other than by a bylaws amendment), by claiming that a rule governing their use would be a special rule of order, despite the reference that Mr. Britton gave way back in post #3 to show that it would be in the nature of a standing rule.

The real question is not whether the majority may decide, but what the proper basis for such a decision is. If a member claims that use of a recording device violates an existing rule, then a Point of Order, subject to an Appeal, is proper. But if there is no existing rule that would forbid using the recorder, then the chair has no right to rule the Point of Order well taken. If the assembly wishes to stop the recording, someone may Raise a Question of Privilege and move that the recording be stopped, or someone may move to adopt a rule on the subject. But until that happens, if it's not forbidden, that means it's permitted.

And if the member tossed a brick at the chair, that would be permitted because there is no rule prohibiting it? (Okay, I think the General used that example.)

With a bit less hyper example, in many societies it would be perfectly fine for a member to show up wearing a tee shirt with a Confederate battle flag on it. In others, it would be highly offensive. If it has has happened previously, without complaint or with the consent of a majority at a previous meeting, the chair should a rule a point of order regarding it as not well taken, subject to appeal. If it has never happened before, presumably because no one every dreamed of doing something this offensive to the assembly, the chair should rule the point of order well taken, subject to appeal. In either case, the chair could submit the the point of order to the assembly.

I think that, if some rule limits a member's participation in a meeting, even if this is, "If you turn on a tape recorder, you cannot stay," that would ultimately be a rule of order, when that would apply to a future session.

I would add that if the member walks into the assembly wearing a Confederate battle flag tee shirt, tapes the meeting, and nobody raises a point of order, it has established that both actions are okay.