Multi- part question on what non-members can do

[BabbsJohnson]

i have seen a manager participate in a board meeting almost as if they were a board member...even at times assume duties of the chair while an acting chair was present, in an impromptu way (these actions were not asked for).

Examples:

>A manager responds to a direct request from a board member in a side conversation who said they wished to adjourn to Executive Session (the manager gave direct permission to the member, and it was supposed to be an open session topic...there was no motion to adjourn, no vote, no decision of the board. The manager made the decision without the board).

>Telling a board member they could not speak on a piece of information they brought that was not on the agenda (it was an article  directly relevant to the topic that was on the agenda, and discussion had begun on that topic).

>A manager calls on someone who has their hand raised during debate, and tells them they can speak

>A manager inturrrupts a speaker if they thinks the speaker is wrong about something, or makes obvious gestures like shaking their head in an exaggerated way, rolling their eyes, etc or blurting out their opinion to the chair while a speaker has the floor.

>A manager yells at a member, telling them to  “spit it out” as they are trying to communicate to the chair that they were not prepared to speak on an upsetting topic (the chair allowed the manager to do this).

 

 

 

 

[Guest Zev]

A non-member may answer questions posed by the presiding officer, with the consent of the assembly, or when invited by way of a motion moved by a member and adopted by the assembly. The rest of this stuff is a blatant violation of decorum and should not be allowed. Why not move to have the manager excluded from the meeting as soon as he attempts to speak? If he does any of these things again perhaps a motion to bar him permanently from these meetings is the solution. And if the presiding officer is somehow providing cover for the presence and behavior of this manager perhaps a motion to censure both the presiding officer and the manager might provide some relief.

[BabbsJohnson]

7 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

A non-member may answer questions posed by the presiding officer, with the consent of the assembly, or when invited by way of a motion moved by a member and adopted by the assembly. The rest of this stuff is a blatant violation of decorum and should not be allowed. Why not move to have the manager excluded from the meeting as soon as he attempts to speak? If he does any of these things again perhaps a motion to bar him permanently from these meetings is the solution. And if the presiding officer is somehow providing cover for the presence and behavior of this manager perhaps a motion to censure both the presiding officer and the manager might provide some relief.

The presiding officer does seem to provide cover & protection of the manager, and the other board members draw to her so perhaps they will not become a target for her bullying or retaliation for standing up to her.

Can a point of order be raised regarding the manager-related issues?

Also: If a member moves to censure a presiding officer for example, or a manager... and let’s say the motion fails because it gets no second...

Can that member be criticized or censured for attempting to raise a censure?

 

[Guest Zev]

1 hour ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

The presiding officer does seem to provide cover & protection of the manager...

I take it they are not buddy-buddies.

1 hour ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

...and the other board members draw to her...

I take this to mean that the other board members treat the presiding officer with the deference she deserves, but nothing special toward the so-called manager.

1 hour ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Can a point of order be raised regarding the manager-related issues?

Absolutely! As soon as she opens her mouth! Attention: Unless, as I said previously, she is being directed to answer a question or the assembly has voted to request her answer. But definitely nothing like what you have indicated.

1 hour ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Also: If a member moves to censure a presiding officer for example, or a manager... and let’s say the motion fails because it gets no second...

I suspect that you know by now that certain motions that fail to get a second just die, unless they happen to be a Question Of Privilege, Call For The Orders Of The Day, Division Of The Assembly, Objection To The Consideration Of A Question, Parliamentary Inquiry, or a Point Of Order. Perhaps you should order the plastic card that contains the summary of some of this from the National Association of Parliamentarians. It is called "Thirteen Ranking Motions" although it contains more than thirteen. It is almost 4x6 and very convenient.

1 hour ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Can that member be criticized or censured for attempting to raise a censure?

No one may criticize another without first having moved a motion to censure. Anything short of this constitutes a breach of decorum and is subject to a Point Of Order. Remember that we are talking about the merits of the pending motion, not whether so-and-so is a nasty person.

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

No one may criticize another without first having moved a motion to censure. Anything short of this constitutes a breach of decorum and is subject to a Point Of Order. Remember that we are talking about the merits of the pending motion, not whether so-and-so is a nasty person.

However, I think the answer to the underlying question is yes - so far as I know, an assembly can adopt a motion to censure for any reason, or no reason. So it seems to me a member may move to censure a member simply because that member previously moved to censure someone else, and the assembly may adopt that motion.

[BabbsJohnson]

Can a censure happen on an action at a past meeting?

Like the manager making a call that should have been up to the chair or up to the board?

 Or for doing something like misinforming individual board members and the board as a whole about something in our bylaws that was essential?

(She has maintained for several years, recently too that we did not have to use RONR, and even cited that this information was a result of her speaking to a lawyer... recently it was discovered that one of the lawyers she referred to was also not informed enough to give us or her correct information...ie he was wrong, and telling us the wrong thing too)

Edited June 7, 2019 at 02:01 PM by .oOllXllOo.
Add details

[jstackpo]

1 hour ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

one of the lawyers she referred to was also not informed enough to give us or her correct information..

So what else is new?

[Atul Kapur]

2 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Can a censure happen on an action at a past meeting?

Already answered:

4 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

an assembly can adopt a motion to censure for any reason, or no reason

And, I will add that an assembly can adopt a motion to censure Anyone, member or not.

[BabbsJohnson]

8 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

I take it they are not buddy-buddies.

The president and manager are most definitely buddy-buddies.

A bit too much in my opinion.

It’s my opinion that the manager enables the President, in various ways, to abuse power, and to be a bully.

When I said it the other board members draw to the president, I meant that they keep on her good side, and go along with what she wants, so that they will not be seen as dissenting or adversarial, and possibly become a target for her bullying.

If a certain board member is seen as “troublesome”, it seems the manager and president work together behind the scenes to limit or block that board member’s voice, rights and/or participation.

 

Most of the board members don’t care about RONR or don’t know enough about it to know what the rules are & when/if they might be being broken, and how various situations are handled. 

[Josh Martin]

11 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

i have seen a manager participate in a board meeting almost as if they were a board member...even at times assume duties of the chair while an acting chair was present, in an impromptu way (these actions were not asked for).

Nonmembers may speak only with the board’s permission. If a motion is pending, a 2/3 vote is required, as this is a suspension of the rules. Otherwise, a majority vote is required. The board may also adopt its own rules on this matter if it wishes. To the extent that nonmembers are permitted to speak, they are expected to follow decorum and to speak only when recognized, just as members are expected to do. 

The manager may only assume the duties of the chair with the permission of the assembly. If the regular chair and/or vice chair are present, their permission is also required (alternately, a 2/3 vote of the assembly is sufficient to override the objections of the regular chairman or vice chairman).

10 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Can a point of order be raised regarding the manager-related issues?

Yes (at least concerning those issues described here, as they do involve questions of order).

10 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Also: If a member moves to censure a presiding officer for example, or a manager... and let’s say the motion fails because it gets no second...

Then the motion dies for lack of a second. (Generally, seconds are not required in small boards, which I recall from previous threads that this assembly is, but I also recall that this particular board customarily does require seconds.)

10 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Can that member be criticized or censured for attempting to raise a censure?

It would not be appropriate for members to just start to criticize the member who made the motion to censure, as such comments are not in order unless they are germane to a pending motion (such as a motion to censure).

It would be in order to censure the member for attempting to raise a censure.

4 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Can a censure happen on an action at a past meeting?

Like the manager making a call that should have been up to the chair or up to the board?

 Or for doing something like misinforming individual board members and the board as a whole about something in our bylaws that was essential?

(She has maintained for several years, recently too that we did not have to use RONR, and even cited that this information was a result of her speaking to a lawyer... recently it was discovered that one of the lawyers she referred to was also not informed enough to give us or her correct information...ie he was wrong, and telling us the wrong thing too)

Yes to all of the above.

A motion to censure is simply a motion expressing the assembly’s disapproval. What reason(s) warrant the assembly’s disapproval is at this assembly’s discretion, and there no time limits on making a motion to censure.

27 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

The president and manager are most definitely buddy-buddies.

A bit too much in my opinion.

It’s my opinion that the manager enables the President, in various ways, to abuse power, and to be a bully.

When I said it the other board members draw to the president, I meant that they keep on her good side, and go along with what she wants, so that they will not be seen as dissenting or adversarial, and possibly become a target for her bullying.

If a certain board member is seen as “troublesome”, it seems the manager and president work together behind the scenes to limit or block that board member’s voice, rights and/or participation.

Most of the board members don’t care about RONR or don’t know enough about it to know what the rules are & when/if they might be being broken, and how various situations are handled. 

Attempt to elect new board members and a new President in the next election.

[BabbsJohnson]

11 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

It would not be appropriate for members to just start to criticize the member who made the motion to censure, as such comments are not in order unless they are germane to a pending motion (such as a motion to censure).

It would be in order to censure the member for attempting to raise a censure.

 If the reasons given for the censure was true, but the other members just didn’t want to be seen as going against the grain, and the motion failed, would it be proper for them to censure the person who raised the failed center just for trying to raising a censure?  

Would they have to provide any other reason, like claiming that the information was not true, for instance?

[Josh Martin]

2 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

If the reasons given for the censure was true, but the other members just didn’t want to be seen as going against the grain, and the motion failed, would it be proper for them to censure the person who raised the failed center just for trying to raising a censure?  

Yes. To be abundantly clear, an assembly is free to censure anyone it wants for whatever reason it wants.

2 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Would they have to provide any other reason, like claiming that the information was not true, for instance?

No.

[Joshua Katz]

4 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

 If the reasons given for the censure was true, but the other members just didn’t want to be seen as going against the grain, and the motion failed, would it be proper for them to censure the person who raised the failed center just for trying to raising a censure?  

Would they have to provide any other reason, like claiming that the information was not true, for instance?

Any assembly may, so far as RONR is concerned, censure Nancy Pelosi for no reason at all. It can also censure Nancy Pelosi because the sky is blue. 

[BabbsJohnson]

8 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Any assembly may, so far as RONR is concerned, censure Nancy Pelosi for no reason at all. It can also censure Nancy Pelosi because the sky is blue. 

“We disapprove of you because our lunch was short two orders of fries.”

So I suppose if a group censures a member for reasons that are illogical or don’t make sense, or to try to make that person continually feel unwelcome, even if just plain mean and unfair, nothing stops them? 

In the business world, many corporations adopt anti-bullying policies. If a society adopted one that included prohibiting such unfair actions, like censuring for unfair, untrue, or capricious reasons, assuming one could interpret it as harassment of a kind, and psychologically abusive, I suppose that’s what would be needed in order to say “that is not allowed”, and use that separate set of standards for judging such actions(?)

 

[Guest Zev]

1 hour ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

So I suppose if a group censures a member for reasons that are illogical or don’t make sense,...

Quote

Any main or other motion that is frivolous or absurd or that contains no rational proposition is dilatory and cannot be introduced.

RONR 11th edition, page 342.

1 hour ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

...or to try to make that person continually feel unwelcome, even if just plain mean and unfair, nothing stops them? 

That is correct. When you use the words "mean" and "unfair" these denote an opinion that you have of what the motion is trying to do. There is no escape from this type of thing and the best that can be done is to gain recognition and make the case that the society is worse off if they adopt such a motion. It is called "debate."

1 hour ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

In the business world, many corporations adopt anti-bullying policies. If a society adopted one that included prohibiting such unfair actions, like censuring for unfair, untrue, or capricious reasons, assuming one could interpret it as harassment of a kind, and psychologically abusive, I suppose that’s what would be needed in order to say “that is not allowed”, and use that separate set of standards for judging such actions(?)

 If you thought something violated your sense of propriety then you are free to express it by gaining recognition and moving the motion you think would fix the breach, policy or no policy. The alternative is to give up. Only you can make that choice.

[BabbsJohnson]

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

 If you thought something violated your sense of propriety then you are free to express it by gaining recognition and moving the motion you think would fix the breach, policy or no policy. The alternative is to give up. Only you can make that choice.

I’m not sure I understand, and I think it would be extremely difficult to make such a motion to cover what I’d need it to.

[Joshua Katz]

6 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

So I suppose if a group censures a member for reasons that are illogical or don’t make sense, or to try to make that person continually feel unwelcome, even if just plain mean and unfair, nothing stops them? 

 

You stop them by voting no. 

 

6 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

 In the business world, many corporations adopt anti-bullying policies. If a society adopted one that included prohibiting such unfair actions, like censuring for unfair, untrue, or capricious reasons, assuming one could interpret it as harassment of a kind, and psychologically abusive, I suppose that’s what would be needed in order to say “that is not allowed”, and use that separate set of standards for judging such actions(?)

 

Yes, if a society adopts rules limiting censure, it would then follow those rules.

[Josh Martin]

On 6/8/2019 at 2:43 AM, .oOllXllOo. said:

So I suppose if a group censures a member for reasons that are illogical or don’t make sense, or to try to make that person continually feel unwelcome, even if just plain mean and unfair, nothing stops them? 

Yes.

On 6/8/2019 at 2:43 AM, .oOllXllOo. said:

In the business world, many corporations adopt anti-bullying policies. If a society adopted one that included prohibiting such unfair actions, like censuring for unfair, untrue, or capricious reasons, assuming one could interpret it as harassment of a kind, and psychologically abusive, I suppose that’s what would be needed in order to say “that is not allowed”, and use that separate set of standards for judging such actions(?)

The society’s rules take precedence over those in RONR. If a society adopted a rule which prohibited censure for “unfair, untrue, or capricious reasons,” then such censures are prohibited, although it should also be noted that it is ultimately up to the assembly to interpret and enforce its own rules. A member could raise a Point of Order regarding this rule, followed by an Appeal if needed.