Agenda item attachments to review

[Guest Stephen Powell]

Hello and thank you for your comments.

I was at a recent Board meeting where a very contintious topic was discussed.  It had been voted down twice in recent months.  The CEO (non-voting) was supporting adoption of this issue and worked with one of the Board members to make the motion again.  

The agenda was sent out several days ahead with a generic indication for more discussion.  Several hours before the meeting, one of the Board members circulated a voluminous amount of attachments, some of which had been seen before.  However, due to everyones work schedule, no one had time to review the documents that were circulated in the several hours before the meeting.  

During presentation of the agenda, several members objected to the late circulation of attachments with no time to review, and no time for information for the opposing opinion to be presented.  At the urging of the CEO and the member who submitted the attachments a motion was made.  Again objections by multiple members were presented that a motion should not be voted on for reasons stated above.  The motion passed changing a policy that had existed for 30 years.  

Can you comment whether this is a violation of Robert's Rules and if so, the reference and the mechanism to challenge the vote.  

Thank you for your time!

[George Mervosh]

Nothing in the facts presented seem to indicate any violation of the rules in RONR. 

[jstackpo]

36 minutes ago, Guest Stephen Powell said:

The motion passed changing a policy that had existed for 30 years.  

If you are not happy with this (proper) outcome, propose to (re-)amend the policy document with a text more to your liking.  And rally YOUR friends around to all show up to vote for YOUR motion.

Amending the established policy is a form of "Amend Something Previously Adopted" (RONR, p. 305) so a notice of your motion will get you a lower adoption vote threshold.

[Joshua Katz]

Agreeing with the above responses, I'd point out that the inadequate time to read the documents could have been presented in debate as a reason to vote no. If it was, though, it seems not to have won the day.

[Gary Novosielski]

There are methods available to delay the consideration of a motion if the assembly feels more information is needed.  One way is to Postpone the motion to the next meeting; another is to Refer it to a committee.  Or it can simply be voted down, and presented again when more supporting information is available.  If the assembly chose not to use them, then I don't see any violation of the rules here.

Unfortunately, the rules in RONR do not prohibit members from deciding to do inadvisable things.

[Richard Brown]

Guest Stephen, did anyone formally raise a point of order about the procedure violating your rules or customs?  Did anyone appeal from the ruling of the chair?  Those are frequently the two first and best steps to stopping improper or bullying actions from taking place.   As we often say, "You snooze, you lose".  In beaches of parliamentary, an immediate objection (point of order) must generally be raised.  If you fail to complain at the time of the breach, it is generally considered waived.

[Josh Martin]

13 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Guest Stephen, did anyone formally raise a point of order about the procedure violating your rules or customs?  Did anyone appeal from the ruling of the chair?  Those are frequently the two first and best steps to stopping improper or bullying actions from taking place.   As we often say, "You snooze, you lose".  In beaches of parliamentary, an immediate objection (point of order) must generally be raised.  If you fail to complain at the time of the breach, it is generally considered waived.

I agree, but based on the facts provided, it is not clear that there was any breach at all.

As I understand the facts, the OP’s complaint is regarding the fact that a member circulated a number of documents in support of the motion shortly before the meeting. Members did not have enough time to review the documents, nor did members in the opposition have an opportunity to submit documents of their own. None of this violates any rule in RONR. The assembly could have postponed the motion, but apparently it did not wish to do so.