Informal Discussion time limit

[RobertJ]

Procedure in small Boards includes "Informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending." - RONR, 11th ed., p. 488, ll. 7-8.  For a small Homeowners Association (HOA) Board, informal discussion sometimes ensues during open forum with homeowners and during rules enforcement hearings with homeowners.  

 

Time limit of speeches during debate with a motion pending is limited to ten minutes per RONR, 11th ed., p. 387, l. 33.

 

During informal discussion with no motion pending, my understanding is that the ten minute rule would not apply. 

 

So I'm wondering if RONR has no rule with regard to time limit of speeches during informal discussion and the HOA Board has no special rule with regard to time limit of speeches during informal discussion, can the Chair impose a time limit?  Perhaps a special rule of order could be adopted to address this issue.

 

During open forum with homeowners, a homeowner is entitled per state law to address the HOA Board. The HOA Board has adopted a five minute limit for the homeowner to speak.  City Councils have similar open forums where a citizen may address the City Council.  What I've observed in City Council and other governmental bodies during open forum is that the citizen speaks and only the Mayor or Chairperson would usually make any response to the citizen.  During HOA meetings, in addition to the Chairperson (President) responding to the homeowner, Board Members or even the Community Manager after being recognized by the Chair may speak to whatever issue the Homeowner may bring up. When the discussion turns into debate, the Chair can clearly stop such discussion because per state law the Board can only act on items that are already on the agenda posted four days prior per state law.     

 

Rules enforcement hearings with homeowners during executive session are different matter.  But typically after receiving a notice of violation from the Community Manager, the homeowner will address the Board regarding the alleged violation.  In effect the HOA Board is judge and jury with regard to enforcing a fine or other action with regard to the homeowner.   Comments by a Board Member or the Community Manager before a motion is made to fine or not fine the homeowner is when there may be an issue of taking too much time or being inappropriate.  Of course, I understand that this would be informal discussion because no motion would be pending.

 

So to sum up:  

Does RONR contain any rule for time limit of speeches during informal discussion?

If not, during informal discussion what authority does the Chair have for limiting the time that a person has the floor to speak?

Have other organizations adopted any special rules of order for these type of matters conducted in their meetings?

 

Thank you for reading my post and for any and all responses.

 

[Josh Martin]

Does RONR contain any rule for time limit of speeches during informal discussion?

If not, during informal discussion what authority does the Chair have for limiting the time that a person has the floor to speak?

Have other organizations adopted any special rules of order for these type of matters conducted in their meetings?

 

1.) No.

 

2.) None.

 

3.) Probably, but I'm not aware of any examples off the top of my head.

[Edgar Guest]

During open forum with homeowners, a homeowner is entitled per state law to address the HOA Board. The HOA Board has adopted a five minute limit for the homeowner to speak.  City Councils have similar open forums where a citizen may address the City Council.  What I've observed in City Council and other governmental bodies during open forum is that the citizen speaks and only the Mayor or Chairperson would usually make any response to the citizen.  During HOA meetings, in addition to the Chairperson (President) responding to the homeowner, Board Members or even the Community Manager after being recognized by the Chair may speak to whatever issue the Homeowner may bring up. When the discussion turns into debate, the Chair can clearly stop such discussion because per state law the Board can only act on items that are already on the agenda posted four days prior per state law.  

 

All these rules and laws supersede what RONR has to say.

 

In other words, it doesn't matter what RONR has to say.

 

By the way, "informal discussion" refers to informal discussion among the members of the body that is meeting (in this case the board), not informal discussion among non-members (in this case, homeowners who aren't members of the board).

[RobertJ]

Well, if there's no limit to how long a member can speak for in informal discussion and a member won't stop talking, how can that meeting ever end?  A motion to limit debate would not apply either because no debate would be in progress during informal discussion. 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Make a motion to take certain action. Then a motion would be pending and there will no longer be informal discussion.

[Dan Honemann]

Informal discussion is just that, informal discussion, not a filibuster. Such discussion, without a motion pending, is always dependent upon the will of the assembly to put up with it.

[Josh Martin]

Well, if there's no limit to how long a member can speak for in informal discussion and a member won't stop talking, how can that meeting ever end?  A motion to limit debate would not apply either because no debate would be in progress during informal discussion.

A motion can be made to end informal discussion, and this motion would require only a majority vote for adoption, rather than a 2/3 vote, since there is no right for members to speak outside of debate. For the same reason, I believe such a motion could even interrupt a member who is currently speaking, if necessary.

Aside from that, your organization is also free to adopt its own rules on this subject if this is becoming an issue.

[RobertJ]

Thank you all for your responses. 

 

With regard to the open forum at an HOA meeting, I've done some reading of state law which I think would prohibit or limit informal discussion between Board members or between a Board member and a homeowner while a homeowner is addressing the HOA Board during Open Forum.   I understand that state law is outside the scope of this forum.  There are similar state laws with regard to open forum at a city council or other governmental meeting.  It's no wonder that you will rarely see City Council members start engaging in informal discussion while a citizen is addressing the Council.

 

With regard to rules enforcement hearings with a homeowner, RONR 11th ed., pages 665-668 document how such a hearing would be conducted per RONR which I don't think would include informal discussion.  There is state law and the HOA's CC&R's and Bylaws which also apply to such hearings.

[Steven Britton]

Strictly speaking, Informal consideration is one of three Committee Of The Whole variants. RONR (eleventh edition) p. 540 (line 17 - 22) states:

 

"In ordinary societies whose meetings are not large, a much simpler method is to consider the question informally, which in effect only suspends the rule limiting the number of times a member can speak in debate on the main question and any amendments to it."

 

Informal consideration does not affect the time limits on members speaking.

[Josh Martin]

Strictly speaking, Informal consideration is one of three Committee Of The Whole variants. RONR (eleventh edition) p. 540 (line 17 - 22) states:

"In ordinary societies whose meetings are not large, a much simpler method is to consider the question informally, which in effect only suspends the rule limiting the number of times a member can speak in debate on the main question and any amendments to it."

Informal consideration does not affect the time limits on members speaking.

I think what we're talking about is informal discussion while no motion is pending, such as in a small board, not informal consideration of a motion.

[Steven Britton]

I think what we're talking about is informal discussion while no motion is pending, such as in a small board, not informal consideration of a motion.

 

Then, p. 488 (lines 7 & 8): Informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending. Josh, are you implying the time length of speeches is also relaxed? 

[Josh Martin]

Then, p. 488 (lines 7 & 8): Informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending. Josh, are you implying the time length of speeches is also relaxed?

I'm saying that the time limits are completely inapplicable when no motion is pending. RONR prescribes limitations on how long members may speak in debate. So far as I can tell, it places no limitations on how long members may speak at other times.

[RobertJ]

I'm wondering who gets to decide when informal discussion is permitted per RONR p. 487 lines 7 and 8.  I would think that the Chair or a majority of Board members would have that authority.  So I would think that unless a member moves to permit informal discussion and a majority vote for it that the Chair has the authority to not allow informal discussion. 

[Timothy]

I'm wondering who gets to decide when informal discussion is permitted per RONR p. 487 lines 7 and 8.  I would think that the Chair or a majority of Board members would have that authority.  So I would think that unless a member moves to permit informal discussion and a majority vote for it that the Chair has the authority to not allow informal discussion. 

 

No, I wouldn't expect it to be quite so formal. If a member has been thinking about a topic for a while, they may have a motion prepared and ready to go, but it is common with a small board for someone to say, "I think we need to do something about..." and it isn't until they've discussed it for a while that someone knows how to word a motion for them to do what they want to do. To require permission from the chair or a vote by the members before beginning discussion would probably prevent most people from beginning informal discussion at all.

[Edgar Guest]

I would think that the Chair or a majority of Board members would have that authority.  So I would think that unless a member moves to permit informal discussion and a majority vote for it that the Chair has the authority to not allow informal discussion. 

 

The chair has no such authority.

 

Informal discussion at a meeting of a small board is permitted unless and until the board decides it's not.

 

Prior to calling a meeting of the board to order the chair would do well to repeat to himself, "I'm only the chair, I'm only the chair, I'm only the chair".

[RobertJ]

With regard to Homeowners Association meetings where I live in California as well as most other states as I understand it, there are state civil code laws that pertain to what may be discussed at a Homeowners Association Board meeting.  I understand that state law is outside the scope of this forum.  California Civil Code 4930 "Board Discussion restricted to agenda items" documents this requirement. HOA Board members are limited to discussing only matters that are on the agenda that has been posted four days prior to the meeting.  So sitting around in informal discussion deciding what to do about something that's not on the agenda would not, I think, comply with state law where I live.  It might work for a committee established by the Board but not for Board meetings.

 

Informal discussion permitted by California Civil Code 4930 as I understand it would allow a Board Member per California Civil Code 4930 ( (2) to "ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on the person's own activities..."  There are other specific references in the code as to what the law allows a Board Member to do at an HOA Board meeting.

 

When the Board comes to consider each specific agenda item, what usually happens at the HOA Board meetings that I have attended is that there is a limited amount of informal discussion (like asking a question for clarification) and then someone makes a motion to approval a proposal or take other specific action.

[Edgar Guest]

I understand that state law is outside the scope of this forum. 

 

Jerry Seinfeld might say, "I don't think you do".

[Josh Martin]

I'm wondering who gets to decide when informal discussion is permitted per RONR p. 487 lines 7 and 8. I would think that the Chair or a majority of Board members would have that authority. So I would think that unless a member moves to permit informal discussion and a majority vote for it that the Chair has the authority to not allow informal discussion.

Under the small board rules, this is unnecessary. Informal discussion is in order. In a larger assembly, the assembly would need to vote to have an informal discussion. In any event, the chair has no power to permit or deny informal discussion.

With regard to Homeowners Association meetings where I live in California as well as most other states as I understand it, there are state civil code laws that pertain to what may be discussed at a Homeowners Association Board meeting. I understand that state law is outside the scope of this forum. California Civil Code 4930 "Board Discussion restricted to agenda items" documents this requirement. HOA Board members are limited to discussing only matters that are on the agenda that has been posted four days prior to the meeting. So sitting around in informal discussion deciding what to do about something that's not on the agenda would not, I think, comply with state law where I live. It might work for a committee established by the Board but not for Board meetings.

Informal discussion permitted by California Civil Code 4930 as I understand it would allow a Board Member per California Civil Code 4930 ( (2) to "ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on the person's own activities..." There are other specific references in the code as to what the law allows a Board Member to do at an HOA Board meeting.

When the Board comes to consider each specific agenda item, what usually happens at the HOA Board meetings that I have attended is that there is a limited amount of informal discussion (like asking a question for clarification) and then someone makes a motion to approval a proposal or take other specific action.

Okay, so the board's limited in what topics it can discuss (formally or otherwise) at a meeting. There is still no need for a motion to have informal discussion.

[RobertJ]

All right, well, since I started this post I think that I've come to realize that informal discussion in an HOA meeting in California is governed mostly by California Civil Code requirements which I do understand is outside the scope of this forum. 

 

Thank you all for your responses. 

[Timothy]

All right, well, since I started this post I think that I've come to realize that informal discussion in an HOA meeting in California is governed mostly by California Civil Code requirements which I do understand is outside the scope of this forum. 

 

Thank you all for your responses. 

 

It would seem that all discussion is governed by California Civil Code, but I saw nothing in California Civil Code 4930 "Board Discussion restricted to agenda items" that would lead me to believe that it is changing the requirements for informal discussion to be something different than the way RONR specifies it. If the published agenda includes an item for, let's say, "on street parking", the board could still spend a great deal of time talking about what should be done about on street parking before anyone makes a motion, if one is made at all.

[RobertJ]

Like I wrote in an earlier post, what usually happens in our Board meetings is that there is informal discussion about an agenda item, say "on street parking", then someone usually makes a motion. 

 

 

I'll cite these other references regarding informal discussion:

 

RONR 11th ed., pp. 394-395 Occasions Justifying Brief Discussion Outside Debate

p. 396, ll. 2-5: If the Chair permits such discussion he generally should not allow it to continue more than a few moments or longer than is reasonably necessary to arrive at a motion embodying the member's ideas. 

pp. 33-35 Making a motion

p. 34, p. 27-30 Unless the assembly has specifically authorized that a particular subject be discussed while no motion is pending, however, such a discussion can only be entered into at the sufferance of the chair...

 

So if a small Board is using the small Board rules which permits informal discussion, I don't know that the above rules would be negated.  The rules cited above seem to indicate that the Chair has the authority to limit any informal discussion.

 

 

 

 



[Josh Martin]

Like I wrote in an earlier post, what usually happens in our Board meetings is that there is informal discussion about an agenda item, say "on street parking", then someone usually makes a motion. 

 

 

I'll cite these other references regarding informal discussion:

 

RONR 11th ed., pp. 394-395 Occasions Justifying Brief Discussion Outside Debate

p. 396, ll. 2-5: If the Chair permits such discussion he generally should not allow it to continue more than a few moments or longer than is reasonably necessary to arrive at a motion embodying the member's ideas. 

pp. 33-35 Making a motion

p. 34, p. 27-30 Unless the assembly has specifically authorized that a particular subject be discussed while no motion is pending, however, such a discussion can only be entered into at the sufferance of the chair...

 

So if a small Board is using the small Board rules which permits informal discussion, I don't know that the above rules would be negated.  The rules cited above seem to indicate that the Chair has the authority to limit any informal discussion.



The above rules don't apply if the small board rules are used. They clarify that, if the small board rules are not used, the assembly must vote to permit informal discussion. No such motion (nor the chair's permission) is needed under the small board rules.

If your board doesn't like that, it's free to adopt its own rules on the subject.

[RobertJ]

I don't know that I agree that the rules I cited with regard to informal discussion don't apply if the small board rules are used.  The small board rules state that "informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending".  It doesn't explicitly state that the other rules I cited are negated.  That could be one interpretation of "informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending" while another interpretation could be that "informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending" but still restricted by the other rules I cited.

 

The following reference even discusses informal discussion in small assemblies:

 

"Occasionally, however - in small assemblies when a subject is not strongly contested - brief informal consultation or discussion of a subject may assist a member in framing a proper motion.  If the chair permits such discussion, he should not allow it to continue more than a few moments or longer than is reasonably necessary to arrive at a motion embodying the member's ideas." RONR, 11th ed., p. 395, ll. 34-35, p. 396, ll. 1-5.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, I don't agree with the speed limit on the Interstate, at times, but somehow that doesn't change what it is.  The rules in RONR are clear, as Mr. Martin explained.

 

But unlike with the speed limit, I'm not free to adopt my own rules if I don't like the present ones.  Your organization, however, probably is.  In the long run, it's easier to pass a special rule of order than to pretend not to understand the rules you don't like.

[Dan Honemann]

I, for one, think that RobertJ makes a good point.

 

I think Josh Martin does too.

 

Put them both together, harmonize them, and you've got the right answer (as found in post #6)