Attending board meeting

[Cory]

Are members of a non profit religion based society allowed to attend regularly scheduled board meetings? If a member requests to attend a meeting, in order to witness the discussion that ensues from the members challenge of improprieties by the board, can the board refuse the member the right to attend the meeting.

 

[George Mervosh]

1) Non-board members have no right to attend a board meeting.

2) Yes.

[Richard Brown]

. . . Unless your bylaws grant non board members the right to attend board meetings.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

22 minutes ago, Cory said:

... the members challenge of improprieties by the board... 

Perhaps the board members could be removed from office (see FAQ #20).

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

. . . Unless your bylaws grant non board members the right to attend board meetings.

Sure, but I do not think such a rule would have to be placed in the bylaws. Even a standing rule would be sufficient, in my opinion.

3 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

Perhaps the board members could be removed from office (see FAQ #20).

Well, I think the issue is that they wish to observe the board's meetings to see what the board does about the improprieties before they decide what further action to take. Perhaps the membership could adopt a motion ordering the board to permit the society's members to attend this board meeting.

[Richard Brown]

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

. . . Unless your bylaws grant non board members the right to attend board meetings.

 

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

Sure, but I do not think such a rule would have to be placed in the bylaws. Even a standing rule would be sufficient, in my opinion.

A standing rule?  I agree that a special rule of order would be sufficient and almost said so in my comment, but a standing rule?   That rule, if not in the bylaws, would would have to be in the special rules of order, wouldn't it? 

[George Mervosh]

 

23 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

A standing rule?  I agree that a special rule of order would be sufficient and almost said so in my comment, but a standing rule?   

Would such a rule, eliminate the board's ability to go into executive session and exclude the non-board members, and would it also change the rule for removing non-board members from the hall in case of a breach of order?   If not, then how does it "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 15)

[Joshua Katz]

Mr. Martin's comment got me thinking - a standing rule of whose?  A standing rule of the board can, of course, be suspended by the board (or amended out of existence).  But a standing rule adopted at a membership meeting would be sufficient, and couldn't be suspended by the board, I think.  

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

A standing rule?  I agree that a special rule of order would be sufficient and almost said so in my comment, but a standing rule?   That rule, if not in the bylaws, would would have to be in the special rules of order, wouldn't it? 

If the rule merely allows members of the society to attend, this does not appear to be in the nature of a rule of order.

I think you could argue, however, that adopting this standing rule would require a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice, since the rule is countermanding a decision of the board.

40 minutes ago, Godelfan said:

Mr. Martin's comment got me thinking - a standing rule of whose?  A standing rule of the board can, of course, be suspended by the board (or amended out of existence).  But a standing rule adopted at a membership meeting would be sufficient, and couldn't be suspended by the board, I think.  

Either the board of the membership could adopt the rule. As you note, which body adopts the rule has implications for amending, suspending, or rescinding the rule.

[Dave Bennett]

If the society has adopted RONR (11th ed.) as its parliamentary authority, I don't think a standing rule would be applicable, especially as it relates to a majority vote with previous notice.  RONR (11th ed.) p. 18, ll. 16-19 states "A standing rule can be adopted by a majority vote without previous notice, provided that it does not conflict with or amend any existing rule or act of the society."  I would think RONR would be considered a rule of the society.

[Gary c Tesser]

4 hours ago, Dave Bennett said:

...provided that it does not conflict with or amend any existing rule or act of the society."  I would think RONR would be considered a rule of the society.

Ooo.  I'm not sure I agree, but good thinking.

[Joshua Katz]

I agree that if RONR is adopted in the bylaws, its rules can (through one of two different theories, and I don't know that it matters which one you use) be considered rules of the society.  However, I don't think such a standing rule would conflict with anything in RONR.  RONR says that members have no such right, but does not prohibit their attendance.  It is not, in my opinion, contrary to that to provide such a right by rule.  If a federal law were to provide that states do not have to, I don't know, include pictures on driver's licenses, would it be contrary to that law for a state to provide, by state law, that such pictures will be included?

[Gary Novosielski]

4 hours ago, Dave Bennett said:

If the society has adopted RONR (11th ed.) as its parliamentary authority, I don't think a standing rule would be applicable, especially as it relates to a majority vote with previous notice.  RONR (11th ed.) p. 18, ll. 16-19 states "A standing rule can be adopted by a majority vote without previous notice, provided that it does not conflict with or amend any existing rule or act of the society."  I would think RONR would be considered a rule of the society.

That's true, but there is no rule in RONR prohibiting non-members from attending a meeting.  It says that they have no right to attend, but the decision of who may and who may not attend is left up to the assembly.

There is a rule preventing them from speaking in debate, and that rule could not be superseded by a standing rule, but it could be suspended by a 2/3 vote, and it could be superseded by a special rule of order.