What constitutes a "small board"?

[Guest Moira]

What constitutes a 'small board'?     Is 'small board' based on the number of board members or on the number of members in the group/association?

[Edgar Guest]

What constitutes a 'small board'?     Is 'small board' based on the number of board members or on the number of members in the group/association?

 

RONR describes a "small" board as one with not more than about a dozen members (regardless of how many members are in the association).

For future references, please post your questions as new topics in the General Discussion forum.

[Josh Martin]

 RONR describes a "small" board as one with not more than about a dozen members (regardless of how many members are in the association).

For future references, please post your questions as new topics in the General Discussion forum.

 

More precisely, it's one with not more than about a dozen members present. A board of say, 18 or 20 with poor attendance could still qualify as a small board.

[George Mervosh]

More precisely, it's one with not more than about a dozen members present. A board of say, 18 or 20 with poor attendance could still qualify as a small board.

 

That's the way I understood it, but it doesn't say "present" on page 10, although it does on p. 487.

[Edgar Guest]

That's the way I understood it, but it doesn't say "present" on page 10, although it does on p. 487.

 

I used it think it meant "present" too but we had discussed this question here some time ago and I seemed to be on the wrong end of that argument. So I've stopped Including "present".

[Richard Brown]

In my opinion, RONR contradicts itself on that point.  At the bottom page 9 and the top of page 10 it says it is based on the number of persons who are members of the board.  Here is the precise language:

 

"Whenever reference is made in this book to "small boards," the size implied will depend somewhat on conditions, but such boards are usually to be understood as [page 10] consisting of not more than about a dozen persons."

 

But, then, on page 487, it says this:

 

"PROCEDURE IN SMALL BOARDS. In a board meeting where there are not more than about a dozen members present, some of the formality that is necessary in a large assembly would hinder business."

 

I hope that in the next edition RONR sticks to one version or the other.

[George Mervosh]

I used it think it meant "present" too but we had discussed this question here some time ago and I seemed to be on the wrong end of that argument. So I've stopped Including "present".

 

I think the rule means members "present", whether or not the book includes the word on p. 10.  I was just pointing out how one could drop that word easy enough.

[Dan Honemann]

The rules on pages 487-88 apply, as the book says, to board meetings where there are not more than about a dozen members present. This does not mean that a board with 18 or 20 members should, as an entity, be considered a small board.

[Steven Britton]

The rules on pages 487-88 apply, as the book says, to board meetings where there are not more than about a dozen members present. This does not mean that a board with 18 or 20 members should, as an entity, be considered a small board.

 

So, more precisely, what is a number that is permitted, that is,  could be considered a small board? Could a 13 or 14 member board be considered a small board?

[Richard Brown]

The rules on pages 487-88 apply, as the book says, to board meetings where there are not more than about a dozen members present. This does not mean that a board with 18 or 20 members should, as an entity, be considered a small board.

If the rule  applies to meetings where not more than about a dozen members are present, rather than to the number of members on the board, then why should a board of 18 to 20 members not be considered a small board and operate under the small board rules if it consistently has no more than about a dozen members present at its board meetings?

[jstackpo]

So, more precisely, what is a number that is permitted, that is,  could be considered a small board? Could a 13 or 14 member board be considered a small board?

 

 

13-14?  Sure, if there is nothing really controversial going on.  I have worked with a FIVE person board and they had to stick to the completely formal rules to get anything done, for the reason that they hated each other's guts.  But they HAD to do the business of (in this case) the homeowners association so they did it completely formally and avoided fights.  (And they weren't married to each other, either.)

[Dan Honemann]

So, more precisely, what is a number that is permitted, that is,  could be considered a small board? Could a 13 or 14 member board be considered a small board?

 

There is no fixed number, because there should not be a fixed number. If a board of 13 or 14 members considers itself to be a board "consisting of not more than about a dozen persons", I see no reason to fuss with them about it.

[Steven Britton]

There is no fixed number, because there should not be a fixed number. If a board of 13 or 14 members considers itself to be a board "consisting of not more than about a dozen persons", I see no reason to fuss with them about it.

 

From your past posts on the subject, this is what I've understood.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Even if the board is not a "small board", I would think that special rules of order could be adopted to allow the board to use some or all of the procedures for small boards.

[Edgar Guest]

When we're next asked:

 

What constitutes a 'small board'? 

 

Should we answer:

 

A. One in which not more than about a dozen members are present.

 

or

 

B. One which consists of not more than about a dozen members.

 

?

[Dan Honemann]

What constitutes a 'small board'?    

 

When we're next asked:

 

 

Should we answer:

 

A. One in which not more than about a dozen members are present.

 

or

 

B. One which consists of not more than about a dozen members.

 

?

 

B.

[Gary Novosielski]

So would it be fair to say that a "small board" is one which has no more than about a dozen members, but that a larger board that has, on a given occasion, no more than about a dozen members present may (presuming a quorum is present) operate under the "small board" rules, notwithstanding the fact that it is not a small board?  That is, its smallness is occasional rather than structural.

[Dan Honemann]

So would it be fair to say that a "small board" is one which has no more than about a dozen members, but that a larger board that has, on a given occasion, no more than about a dozen members present may (presuming a quorum is present) operate under the "small board" rules, notwithstanding the fact that it is not a small board?  That is, its smallness is occasional rather than structural.

 

Yes, I think so.

[jstackpo]

G.N. sed (in #17):  "may (presuming a quorum is present) operate under the "small board" rules" but the "small board" rules are not a matter of choice.

 

If I read p. 487, lines 29ff. correctly, the S-B Rules are the default, not a matter of choice.  If a "smallish" board wants to use the full formal set of RONR's rules, that would seem to me to require adoption of some sort of "We shall use RONR in all it's glory" special rule of order.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, that raises an interesting (to me at least) question.

 

These small-board rules (SBR) are usually fine in small groups where the issues are not controversial.  

 

But suppose a board operating under SBR begins to debate a topic that, in the opinion of the chair and a sizable fraction of members, is straining the relaxed limits of SBR.  What recourse is open to a  chair or member who believes it would be beneficial to tighten up the rules and impose a more rigorous formality on the proceedings?

[jstackpo]

Good question!   Since adoption of a special rule of order requires notice, that dog won't hunt.

 

How about moving to suspend the SB Rules (on p. 487).  Does that mean the rest of the book would take over.  I suppose it might.

[Dan Honemann]

Good question!   Since adoption of a special rule of order requires notice, that dog won't hunt.

 

There is so much wrong with all this concern about how boards can't possibly figure out how or when to relax formalities (although they always manage to do so), it is perhaps irrelevant to point out that a majority of the entire membership (which, in board meetings, is usually rather easy to obtain) can adopt a special rule of order without any notice at all.

[jstackpo]

Whoops, I stand corrected, yet again.  Thank you.

[Gary Novosielski]

There is so much wrong with all this concern about how boards can't possibly figure out how or when to relax formalities (although they always manage to do so), it is perhaps irrelevant to point out that a majority of the entire membership (which, in board meetings, is usually rather easy to obtain) can adopt a special rule of order without any notice at all.

 

My concern wasn't about how or when to relax formalities, it was the reverse.  

 

Once a board has already agreed to relax formalities, how difficult is it to get the reins back in hand?

[Dan Honemann]

My concern wasn't about how or when to relax formalities, it was the reverse.  

 

Once a board has already agreed to relax formalities, how difficult is it to get the reins back in hand?

 

It's no more difficult than it was to decide to let them go.