HOABoDMembr

[Guest HOABoDMembr]

Our new Code of Conduct states:

"Abide by the decisions of the Board. When an issue has been decided demonstrate loyalty to the Board by accepting the decision and do not re-raise the issue either via communications outside Board meetings or during Board meetings." 

 

Our Bylaws include:

"Roberts Rules of Order (latest edition) shall generally govern the conduct of corporate proceedings when not in conflict with the Certificate, these Bylaws, the Declaration, or with the Statutes of the State of Florida." 

 

Doesn't the RONR allow me to "re-raise" an issue? Doesn't the RONR supersede our new Code of Conduct? 

 

 

[David A Foulkes]

Doesn't the RONR allow me to "re-raise" an issue?

 

Yes, although there may be some applicable restrictions depending on the issue and the state of its "completeness", and the timeline involving when the issue was (I assume) adopted.

 

Doesn't the RONR supersede our new Code of Conduct? 

 

It might.  Generally, RONR is the "low man on the totem pole" so to speak, although it appears to be superseded only by your "Certificate, these Bylaws, the Declaration, or with the Statutes of the State of Florida."  If your Code of Conduct could be interpreted to be among your Standing Rules or (Special) Rules of Order (RONR 11th ed., pp. 15-18), it might take precedence over the rules found in RONR.

 

As for the "via communications outside Board meetings" part, this might border on a First Amendment violation, but that would be more of a legal issue than a parliamentary one.

[Chris Harrison]

RONR does have a mechanism in place for decisions to be revisited by Rescinding or Amending a Previously Adopted motion, to renew a defeated motion, or to Reconsider a previously made decision (RONR pp. 305-310, pp. 315-342).  As to whether the rule in the Code would supersede RONR depends on where it ranks in the hierarchy of governing documents.  If I remember correctly (and I may not be given that I haven't had my coffee this morning), it has been said here that a rule limiting when a motion can be revisited needs to at least at the level of a Special Rule of Order if not in the bylaws.  But stay tuned.

[Thomas Ralph]

I would say a rule prohibiting members from moving to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted would need to be at least a special rule of order and quite possibly in the bylaws.

 

In any case, what I'd like to know first is how this alleged "Code of Conduct" came into being. Was it passed by the board? By the membership? Or is it the president trying to originate some sort of rule on his/her own initiative

[Josh Martin]

Doesn't the RONR allow me to "re-raise" an issue?

 

RONR permits members to "re-raise" an issue during a meeting by (depending on the circumstances) renewing the motion, moving to Reconsider a motion, or moving to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. RONR doesn't permit members to speak adversely on a prior decision during a meeting without using one of those tools. RONR doesn't control what members do outside of meetings.

 

Doesn't the RONR supersede our new Code of Conduct? 

 

I'd have to know how this Code of Conduct was adopted to answer that question. It might, or it might be the other way around.

 

Generally, RONR is the "low man on the totem pole" so to speak, although it appears to be superseded only by your "Certificate, these Bylaws, the Declaration, or with the Statutes of the State of Florida."

 

RONR itself notes that special rules of order also take precedence.

 

If your Code of Conduct could be interpreted to be among your Standing Rules or (Special) Rules of Order (RONR 11th ed., pp. 15-18), it might take precedence over the rules found in RONR.

 

Standing rules don't conflict with RONR, so precedence isn't an issue, but not everything in this rule could be adopted as a standing rule. The rule as written seems to be partly in the nature of a standing rule and partly in the nature of a special rule of order. A standing rule wouldn't be sufficient to prevent members from making appropriate motions to "re-raise" the issue in a meeting, but it would be sufficient to prevent members from discussing the issue outside of meetings.

 

As for the "via communications outside Board meetings" part, this might border on a First Amendment violation, but that would be more of a legal issue than a parliamentary one.

 

If this is a government body, yes, the society should certainly consult a lawyer about those concerns.

[Guest HOABoDMembr]

I would say a rule prohibiting members from moving to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted would need to be at least a special rule of order and quite possibly in the bylaws.

 

In any case, what I'd like to know first is how this alleged "Code of Conduct" came into being. Was it passed by the board? By the membership? Or is it the president trying to originate some sort of rule on his/her own initiative

The new President pulled it out after someone told a Board member to shut

 

I would say a rule prohibiting members from moving to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted would need to be at least a special rule of order and quite possibly in the bylaws.

 

In any case, what I'd like to know first is how this alleged "Code of Conduct" came into being. Was it passed by the board? By the membership? Or is it the president trying to originate some sort of rule on his/her own initiative

The 2 page Code was presented at the January meeting of the HOA Board by our new President. The second revision was passed by the HOA Board as a stand-alone document to govern the Board's behavior.

[Josh Martin]

The 2 page Code was presented at the January meeting of the HOA Board by our new President. The second revision was passed by the HOA Board as a stand-alone document to govern the Board's behavior.

 

Okay. Based on these additional facts, I'd say this particular provision of the Code of Conduct is only valid with respect to board members' conduct outside of meetings. A subordinate board does not have the authority to adopt rules which conflict with the rules of the organization, including the parliamentary authority, unless the organization's bylaws grant it such authority. The membership could adopt such a rule by a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.