Can you give a few examples of the chair acting without impartiality?

[BabbsJohnson]

Hello,

I’m wondering if anyone could give examples of what the opposite position would look like....

Meaning examples of a chairperson not being impartial?

Does that impartiality apply to small boards where the chair typically debates and votes?

[jstackpo]

Obvious Examples:  Entering into the debate (pro or con) on a motion; calling upon speakers who favor the (the chair's) opinion systematically, rather than alternating, when possible; basically, doing much of anything other than just presiding and ruling;

Board:  No.

[BabbsJohnson]

Ok. Thank you

Do you have any feedback on the question about small boards when the chair is typically allowed to debate and vote, instead of not entering into debate, and only voting only to break a tie?

[jstackpo]

I'm not sure what you are asking for; RONR's "Small Board" rules start on page 487.  Note that the use of the SBRules is not an option, per the phrasing there (even though page 16 says "small assembly" rules do need to be formally adopted).    I think the distinction (per Dan the Man, some time ago) is that for small boards the simpler rules are automatically applied, while for small association meetings, they have to be formally adopted.

[Dan Honemann]

Well, no, I think that boards and executive committees are to decide for themselves the extent to which they will be governed by "small board" rules, as General Robert tells us on page 251 of PL.

[BabbsJohnson]

All good.

Edited March 1, 2019 at 05:05 PM by Nosey
.

[Benjamin Geiger]

Agreed: a lot of organizations use what I've been calling "Bob's Rules", usually out of a lack of understanding of proper procedure. It's rarely an explicit decision to use small-board rules.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

1 hour ago, Nosey said:

it’s like the making a motion, amending a motion, calling for a second, discussion/debate (very sloppily...no one keeps track, ppl kntirtup each other, they do not address the chair) then calling for a vote, is the only part is the only part of RONR we actually use. A tiny slice used, and likely we do it incorrectly.

Have you adopted a parliamentary authority in your bylaws? If not, you are free to run the meetings as you see fit. The first step toward a fair and predictable order is to adopt an authority, preferably RONR, in your bylaws. Then use it.

[BabbsJohnson]

.

Edited March 1, 2019 at 05:06 PM by Nosey
.

[Richard Brown]

4 hours ago, Nosey said:

Do you have any feedback on the question about small boards when the chair is typically allowed to debate and vote, instead of not entering into debate, and only voting only to break a tie?

Well, since it is made clear on page 488 that with the "small board rules" the chairman may essentially participate to the same extent as all other members, I would say that there is nothing wrong with the chair making her position known and advocating for that position in debate.  Here is the applicable quote from page 488 regarding the chair's participation under the small board rules:  "If the chairman is a member, he may, without leaving the chair, speak in informal discussions and in debate, and vote on all questions"  The footnote on that page goes on to say, "Informal discussion may be initiated by the chairman himself, which, in effect, enables the chairman to submit his own proposals without formally making a motion as described on pages 33–35 (although he has the right to make a motion if he wishes)"