Demack Posted March 23, 2015 at 02:19 AM Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 at 02:19 AM At a board meeting where only members of the association are allowed. Can a member have an attorney present in the meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 23, 2015 at 02:38 AM Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 at 02:38 AM At a board meeting where only members of the association are allowed. Can a member have an attorney present in the meeting. Only if the board permits it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demack Posted March 23, 2015 at 02:41 AM Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 at 02:41 AM Thanks that's what I thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cecurt Posted March 26, 2015 at 12:02 AM Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 at 12:02 AM what if that member has an attorney present due to his mandated appearance for possible disciplinary action or punitive punishment? Member is not allowed counsel???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cecurt Posted March 26, 2015 at 12:03 AM Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 at 12:03 AM and it is only the board appearing not a members meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cecurt Posted March 26, 2015 at 12:10 AM Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 at 12:10 AM And while we are at it, I respect your opinions Josh as a parliamentarian so I will ask your thoughts albeit not binding nor arbitrary in this scenario, so does a board have a right to suspend rules or bylaws without members present for a non-emergent situation and vote to allow a action in direct conflict with an established rule under the bylaws and Rules and Regulations? How does the articles of incorporation, allowing daily operations by a board, supersede the bylaws and established member approved rules that does not place either the charter, the facility, the members incorporation or the members personnel liability in jeopardy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 26, 2015 at 12:13 AM Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 at 12:13 AM P. 664 deals with the option of having a "defense counsel" present and the related rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 26, 2015 at 01:53 AM Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 at 01:53 AM what if that member has an attorney present due to his mandated appearance for possible disciplinary action or punitive punishment? Member is not allowed counsel???? If the member is being tried for discipline, he has a right to counsel, but such counsel must be a member of the society, unless the assembly permits otherwise. "Defense counsel can be attorney(s) or not, but must be member(s) of the society unless the trial body (that is, the assembly or the trial committee as the case may be) by vote agrees to permit attorney(s) who are not member(s) to act in this capacity. Nonmembers who consent to testify can be brought in as witnesses at the trial, but such a witness should be allowed in the room only while testifying. " (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 664) and it is only the board appearing not a members meeting? The original post specifically states "At a board meeting where only members of the association are allowed," Therefore, it would seem that it is a board meeting, but the board permits members of the association (and no others) to attend the meeting. And while we are at it, I respect your opinions Josh as a parliamentarian so I will ask your thoughts albeit not binding nor arbitrary in this scenario, so does a board have a right to suspend rules or bylaws without members present for a non-emergent situation and vote to allow a action in direct conflict with an established rule under the bylaws and Rules and Regulations? How does the articles of incorporation, allowing daily operations by a board, supersede the bylaws and established member approved rules that does not place either the charter, the facility, the members incorporation or the members personnel liability in jeopardy? Please post these unrelated questions as a new topic. When you do so, please provide some additional facts and clarify what it is that you are asking. As the questions are currently stated, the best answer I can come up with to the first question is "Probably not" and I don't really understand what you are asking with the second question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted March 26, 2015 at 01:54 AM Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 at 01:54 AM And while we are at it, I respect your opinions Josh as a parliamentarian so I will ask your thoughts albeit not binding nor arbitrary in this scenario, so does a board have a right to suspend rules or bylaws without members present for a non-emergent situation and vote to allow a action in direct conflict with an established rule under the bylaws and Rules and Regulations? How does the articles of incorporation, allowing daily operations by a board, supersede the bylaws and established member approved rules that does not place either the charter, the facility, the members incorporation or the members personnel liability in jeopardy?A society (and its board and its executive committee and its standing committees and its special committees and its officers do not have the right or the power to suspend the bylaws at all.. under any circumstances....emergency or not.... unless they provide for their own suspension and except for a very few that are clearly in the nature of rules or order dealing with meeting procedure while in meetings. Those situations are very rare. See RONR page 17. Don't get the idea from that statement that you can go around suspending bylaws. The order of priority of rules that a body is subject to are, in this order: State laws, the Charter or Articles of Incorporation, The constitution, if the society has a separate constitution, the bylaws, special rules of order, the rules of order in the parliamentary authority, standing rules and custom. If a rule of lesser authority conflicts with a rule of higher authority, the rule of higher authority controls. Edited to add: I agree with Josh Martin's request that you post your question as a new topic. I did not realize that you are not the original poster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.