Presidential Duties

[Guest Sandra]

My Board of Director's recently adopted into the by-laws the right to vote via email as long as the information was presented and all protocol was accounted for.

I recently, as Board President, made the mistake of making a motion. My board corrected me and said I could not do that unless I relinquished my role to the VP. i looked at the Roberts Rules of order FAQ and the very first question was yes i can as a voting member of the Board and not just to break a tie vote. Time was of essence herr is why I went ahead and made the motion in th first place.

True ?

[Guest Edgar]

True ?

Is the FAQ true? I sure hope so.

What's more troubling is the fact that your board amended the bylaws. Are you sure it has the authority to do that?

[Chris Harrison]

FAQ #1 gave you your answer.

[David A Foulkes]

If this was a "small" Board meeting (about a dozen or fewer members in attendance), and you are a member of the Board, then you can as the presiding officer exercise all your membership rights as fully as any other member, including the right to make motions. So, you tell us -- does that sound like the situation?

[Steven Britton]

Where RONR does permit the relaxing of rules surronding the chairs impartiality (making motions, speaking in debate, and voting outside of affecting a tie, or by secret ballot), the relaxation is not universal to all small boards.

It's my understanding your board would need to make some sort of decision to permit the rules to be relaxed. If they weren't aware that small board rules were permitted, how could they decide to allow the rules to be relaxed? Have they previously decided to allow these rules regarding the chair to be relaxed?

[David A Foulkes]

Where RONR does permit the relaxing of rules surronding the chairs impartiality (making motions, speaking in debate, and voting outside of affecting a tie, or by secret ballot), the relaxation is not universal to all small boards.

It's my understanding your board would need to make some sort of decision to permit the rules to be relaxed. If they weren't aware that small board rules were permitted, how could they decide to allow the rules to be relaxed? Have they previously decided to allow these rules regarding the chair to be relaxed?

FAQ #1 states:

If the president is a member of the voting body, he or she has exactly the same rights and privileges as all other members have, including the right to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote on all questions. So, in meetings of a small board (where there are not more than about a dozen board members present), and in meetings of a committee, the presiding officer may exercise these rights and privileges as fully as any other member.

It doesn't qualify it by saying "but only if the members of the board are aware of this." If the organization has adopted in its bylaws RONR as its parliamentary authority, the rules contained in it apply. It is the responsibility of the board members, and all general members, to be aware of the rules - all the rules - contained in the book. Just because they fail to do so does not negate the effect or applicability of the rule(s).

[Steven Britton]

FAQ #1 states:

If the president is a member of the voting body, he or she has exactly the same rights and privileges as all other members have, including the right to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote on all questions. So, in meetings of a small board (where there are not more than about a dozen board members present), and in meetings of a committee, the presiding officer may exercise these rights and privileges as fully as any other member.

It doesn't qualify it by saying "but only if the members of the board are aware of this." If the organization has adopted in its bylaws RONR as its parliamentary authority, the rules contained in it apply. It is the responsibility of the board members, and all general members, to be aware of the rules - all the rules - contained in the book. Just because they fail to do so does not negate the effect or applicability of the rule(s).

Well, my point of order then could be we've not decided to follow small board rules, and our board chair has never made a motion before.

The chair could rules the point not well-taken.

The appeal is seconded and the other board members all vote against sustaining the chair's ruling.

Dan's stated before it's up to the board to decide whether they wish to follow small board rules, or not; (one way or the other).

[Steven Britton]

FAQ #1 states:

If the president is a member of the voting body, he or she has exactly the same rights and privileges as all other members have, including the right to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote on all questions. So, in meetings of a small board (where there are not more than about a dozen board members present), and in meetings of a committee, the presiding officer may exercise these rights and privileges as fully as any other member.

It doesn't qualify it by saying "but only if the members of the board are aware of this." If the organization has adopted in its bylaws RONR as its parliamentary authority, the rules contained in it apply. It is the responsibility of the board members, and all general members, to be aware of the rules - all the rules - contained in the book. Just because they fail to do so does not negate the effect or applicability of the rule(s).

P. 9 Line (line 28 - 32) "Large boards GENERALLY follow parliamentary procedure in the same way as any other assembly. In small boards, and in commitees, most parliamentary rules apply, but cetain modifications permitting greater flexibility and informality are COMMONLY allowed."

If the board has never made a decision to follow small board rules before, I believe they are permitted to decide to operate as a large board if they choose. It''s up to the board to make the decision.

[Gary c Tesser]

Sandra, do you get a sensible answer, just to your problem, out of all of this?

[Josh Martin]

P. 9 Line (line 28 - 32) "Large boards GENERALLY follow parliamentary procedure in the same way as any other assembly. In small boards, and in commitees, most parliamentary rules apply, but cetain modifications permitting greater flexibility and informality are COMMONLY allowed."

If the board has never made a decision to follow small board rules before, I believe they are permitted to decide to operate as a large board if they choose. It''s up to the board to make the decision.

It's quite correct that a small board may choose to use the more formal rules normally applicable to larger assemblies, if it so wishes. Unless and until the board chooses to do so, however, the board should follow the small board rules. "In a board meeting where there are not more than about a dozen members present... The rules governing such meetings are different from the rules that hold in other assemblies..." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 487, lines 26-31) emphasis added)

It is correct that in an assembly which has not yet adopted a rule on the subject, the Point of Order/Appeal route is a method of making this decision.

[Steven Britton]

It's quite correct that a small board may choose to use the more formal rules normally applicable to larger assemblies, if it so wishes. Unless and until the board chooses to do so, however, the board should follow the small board rules. "In a board meeting where there are not more than about a dozen members present... The rules governing such meetings are different from the rules that hold in other assemblies..." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 487, lines 26-31) emphasis added)

It is correct that in an assembly which has not yet adopted a rule on the subject, the Point of Order/Appeal route is a method of making this decision.

I was familiar with the p. 487 citation, but I remember Dan being very emphatic (within the past year) about the individual board having the right to choose whether it follows the relaxed board rules or not.

In Sandra's original post, if a majority of the assembly is telling her she needs to vacate the chair to make a motion., isn't it rather evident that the board is deciding not to allow small board or small assembly rules?

[David A Foulkes]

In Sandra's original post, if a majority of the assembly is telling her she needs to vacate the chair to make a motion., isn't it rather evident that the board is deciding not to allow small board or small assembly rules?

Frankly, considering the number of posts we get here on a regular basis asking if the chair only votes to break a tie, or the president can veto an adopted motion after adjournment, and so on an so on, as well as personal experience, I'd say it's rather evident that the board is not aware of the "small board" rules, quite possibly along with 80-90% of the many other rules found in RONR. That would be my guess.

[Chris Harrison]

Frankly, considering the number of posts we get here on a regular basis asking if the chair only votes to break a tie, or the president can veto an adopted motion after adjournment, and so on an so on, as well as personal experience, I'd say it's rather evident that the board is not aware of the "small board" rules, quite possibly along with 80-90% of the many other rules found in RONR. That would be my guess.

I agree. It can be rather difficult to choose to do (or not do) something if you don't know that the choice exists in the first place.

[Guest Edgar]

Isn't it rather evident that the board is deciding not to allow small board or small assembly rules?

Nope, not evident to me either.

[Steven Britton]

Nope, not evident to me either.

My concern is in a board with an approximate size of 12 or less still has the right as a body to choose whether they wish to relax the large assembly rules. or not. Whether the board specifically realizes they have the authority to make the decision, does not affect the uniformed decision that they've made thus far.

For further information regarding this subject please review the threads from 18 January, and 16 February 2012:

http://robertsrules....__fromsearch__1

and http://robertsrules....h__1#entry67666 .

Thanks

[Josh Martin]

My concern is in a board with an approximate size of 12 or less still has the right as a body to choose whether they wish to relax the large assembly rules. or not. Whether the board specifically realizes they have the authority to make the decision, does not affect the uniformed decision that they've made thus far.

For further information regarding this subject please review the threads from 18 January, and 16 February 2012:

http://robertsrules....__fromsearch__1

and http://robertsrules....h__1#entry67666 .

Okay, you win. It looks like I didn't much care for this answer back then either, which is probably why I forgot it.

So yes, it seems it is correct that the board should continue to use the more formal rules unless and until it decides to do otherwise.

[David A Foulkes]

So, for Guest_Sandra's benefit in answer to her post, would it be fair then to say that her best approach, should she wish to encourage the use of "small board" rules, she should:

1. educate the other board members with regard to RONR's "relaxation" of the formal rules in RONR, and
   
2. assuming she find majority support for this, prompt another member to make a motion to adopt the informal rules as set forth on p. 487ff?
   

[Josh Martin]

So, for Guest_Sandra's benefit in answer to her post, would it be fair then to say that her best approach, should she wish to encourage the use of "small board" rules, she should:

1. educate the other board members with regard to RONR's "relaxation" of the formal rules in RONR, and
   
2. assuming she find majority support for this, prompt another member to make a motion to adopt the informal rules as set forth on p. 487ff?
   

Works for me.

[Steven Britton]

Okay, you win. It looks like I didn't much care for this answer back then either, which is probably why I forgot it.

So yes, it seems it is correct that the board should continue to use the more formal rules unless and until it decides to do otherwise.

I think this might be a good topic for review in the National Parliamentarian. Maybe it should be suggested to someone connected with the publication.

[Josh Martin]

I think this might be a good topic for review in the National Parliamentarian. Maybe it should be suggested to someone connected with the publication.

Perhaps, but the first and most important step in getting an article published anywhere is finding someone to write it.

[Dan Honemann]

Perhaps, but the first and most important step in getting an article published anywhere is finding someone to write it.

Let's hope that whoever writes it will at least base it on facts which involve proceedings in a deliberative assembly.

[Gary Novosielski]

Whether the board specifically realizes they have the authority to make the decision, does not affect the uniformed decision that they've made thus far.

I think they're actually out of uniform.