Small BOD using RONR formality for larger BOD

[Guest Maria Moriano]

Our BOD which meets quorum with about 12 members, out of 23, has been using numerous parlimentary processes that RONR specifies as used for larger BODs. On the one hand, the Presiding officer has been using the strict processes to limit debate, second motions, speak twice to each motion in debate...but then, without limits, she participates in debate and makes her opinions well known. She is not impartial and even scolds the BOD for not following her wishes. My question is: "Since the Presiding officer has implemented using RONR for larger BODs as the standard, can she convienently and selectively pull out the rules for smaller BODs to freely and frequently participate in debate. I think this question falls under how to rein in our dictatator.

[jstackpo]

With respect to your president, you seem to have nailed it. Raise a point of order or two that she isn't following the rules, when she violates them. And if all 23 of your board members show up, she should really feel some heat. See if you can get them to come.

But there is nothing wrong with a really "small" board using the stricter procedures of a regular assembly if it suits them to gets things done. I, as a parliamentarian, worked for a while with a board of only five that dotted every "T" and crossed every "I", because they all hated each other fervently but realized that they HAD to work together to do their jobs. (It was an HOA -- what else...). Following the formal rules was the only way they could do their job and not come to blows.

[Guest Edgar]

(It was an HOA -- what else...)

What else?

A church? A small dog club?

[Guest Maria Moriano]

Thank you JDStakepole.

Ours is a professional union BOD that "hates each other fervently" and we are just not starting to figure out that the members deserve representation that works together to get business done. The President has been dictating and doing her own thing for a very long times but now there is a new BOD elected and she is being called on her abuse of power. Its very messy. Therefore, I think following RONR to the letter is probably the best way to ensure that the democratic process is respected. Can the BOD insist on following the rules for larger BODs, and thus not allow the President to participate freely in debate, and is a motion necessary to define this?

[jstackpo]

It is the choice of the Board, not any individual in it, to decide how strictly it follows the formal rules or opts for the "small board" rules on p. 487. So make a motion to the effect that formal rules will be the standard henceforth, for everybody.

I'd take the tack that your board is really on the edge , if not actually over the "about a dozen" threshold, particularly with 23 members, even though they all don't regularly show up. Perhaps if the president could be reined in a bit, the absentees would see that going to the Board meetings could be productive, not something to be endured. But they would probably have to be cajoled into going in order to accomplish the reining in. If all 23 show, you surely now have a "large" board. It is a bit of a "by your bootstraps" operation. So get those lazy members to show up!

[JohnR]

JD, does this motion establish a special rule of order and does it have the special vote requirement?

[jstackpo]

Good question...

But since Maria Moriano_'s board could have potentially 23 members in one meeting, I'd say the strict formal rules are the default and it would be a SRoO to go to the "relaxed" rules.

[Guest Edgar]

But since Maria Moriano's board could have potentially 23 members in one meeting, I'd say the strict formal rules are the default and it would be a SRoO to go to the "relaxed" rules.

I didn't think the relaxed rules were contingent upon how many members might show up but rather upon how many members were actually present. Which means I thought that a board where fifteen members usually show up could operate under the relaxed rules on a night where only ten member showed up. Perhaps a word from His Authorship is in order here?

[Dan Honemann]

Thank you JDStakepole.

Ours is a professional union BOD that "hates each other fervently" and we are just not starting to figure out that the members deserve representation that works together to get business done. The President has been dictating and doing her own thing for a very long times but now there is a new BOD elected and she is being called on her abuse of power. Its very messy. Therefore, I think following RONR to the letter is probably the best way to ensure that the democratic process is respected. Can the BOD insist on following the rules for larger BODs, and thus not allow the President to participate freely in debate, and is a motion necessary to define this?

It is the choice of the Board, not any individual in it, to decide how strictly it follows the formal rules or opts for the "small board" rules on p. 487. So make a motion to the effect that formal rules will be the standard henceforth, for everybody.

JD, does this motion establish a special rule of order and does it have the special vote requirement?

I agree entirely with John Stackpole's response quoted above.

The facts which we have been given indicate that this board, over a period of quite some time, has followed the rules for small boards insofar as they relate to the chair's participation in debate (and perhaps making motions and voting as well). Under these circumstances, it would seem that a custom has been established which, if it is to be changed, should be changed by way of adoption by the board of a special rule of order rather than by raising a point of order that the rules are not being complied with.

This would be a motion to adopt a special rule of order, thus requiring either previous notice and a two-thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership of the board for its adoption.