Robert's Rules in By Laws and terms?

[Constance]

Austin, Texas.  We have a new person that works for our Management Company that now "conducts" our HOA meetings.   We used to be able to speak and discuss items at the meetings until she came "on board" last year.

For our first Annual HOA meeting in 2018,  she emailed and asked owners to send in items they would like to discuss at the meetings and she would add them to the agenda.  Then at the time of the meeting she not only forgot a copy of the budget but also did not add the items to the agenda that the members wanted to discuss at the meeting.  She then went on to tell us all that she uses  Robert's Rules and Order and that we would each have a total of 3 timed minutes to speak and after each owner speaks, there would be no discussion but that the matters would be brought up later with the Board Members to discuss and then she would send us each the Board's response to our concerns.    Our next meeting is in a week and a copy of the minutes were sent to everyone along with the concerns from the members and the Board Member's responses (a year later?!?).

After our new style of our meeting, I wrote our Management Company and  asked where in our by laws it states we are to use Roberts Rules and there has been no response.   My question is this:  Can she just decide on how to conduct our meetings with no one being able to discuss anything or is there a place in our  Rules and Regulations or Bylaws that states we are to use Robert's Rules and Regulations?

It was hard enough to get people to attend our meetings  before this change and less will even attend which seems to please the HOA Board.   After all,  there is no discussion allowed between the owners, just reading of the finances.   The day before the 2018 meeting, I posted four 8 x 11" papers reminding owners about the meeting of which the President went around and tore them down.  She then stated at the meeting that if I ever did tat again, she would call the Police on me.   This would lead to my second question:  Our President has been in office (along with her friends) for 20 years, does anyone have suggestions on how to change our regulations so that the terms can not be repeated  over and over?

Thank you so much in advance!

[Josh Martin]

23 minutes ago, Constance said:

We have a new person that works for our Management Company that now "conducts" our HOA meetings.   We used to be able to speak and discuss items at the meetings until she came "on board" last year.

How did it come to pass that this person, rather than the President of the HOA, presides over your HOA meetings? Is there some rule in your organization’s governing documents specifying this?

23 minutes ago, Constance said:

For our first Annual HOA meeting in 2018,  she emailed and asked owners to send in items they would like to discuss at the meetings and she would add them to the agenda.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with requesting such a thing, but to be clear, motions which are not sent in advance and/or are not included on the agenda remain in order, unless your rules provide otherwise.

23 minutes ago, Constance said:

She then went on to tell us all that she uses  Robert's Rules and Order and that we would each have a total of 3 timed minutes to speak and after each owner speaks, there would be no discussion but that the matters would be brought up later with the Board Members to discuss and then she would send us each the Board's response to our concerns.

For starters, there should generally not be any discussion at all unless a motion is pending. If a motion is pending, the motion would be discussed and voted on. Unless the assembly has adopted a rule providing otherwise, each member may speak up to twice each day for up to ten minutes each time on each debatable motion. 

If the assembly chooses to permit comments to be made when no motion is pending, during some sort of “Open Forum” or something, the rules concerning that are at the assembly’s discretion.

23 minutes ago, Constance said:

After our new style of our meeting, I wrote our Management Company and  asked where in our by laws it states we are to use Roberts Rules and there has been no response.   My question is this:  Can she just decide on how to conduct our meetings with no one being able to discuss anything or is there a place in our  Rules and Regulations or Bylaws that states we are to use Robert's Rules and Regulations?

I don’t know whether your bylaws or rules and regulations say that your organization is to use Robert’s Rules of Order. You will need to check them. If such a provision is not included, the organization is not required to use it, and is instead free to adopt whatever rules of order it wishes. In the absence of such rules, the organization is expected to follow the common parliamentary law (to the extent that there is agreement on what that is), and Robert’s Rules of Order is the leading manual on the common parliamentary law.

I should also note that what you have described as the procedure this person has used bear very little similarity to Robert’s Rules of Order.

Finally, no, this person does not have the authority to decide on her own how meetings of the society will be conducted.

23 minutes ago, Constance said:

It was hard enough to get people to attend our meetings  before this change and less will even attend which seems to please the HOA Board.   After all,  there is no discussion allowed between the owners, just reading of the finances.   The day before the 2018 meeting, I posted four 8 x 11" papers reminding owners about the meeting of which the President went around and tore them down.  She then stated at the meeting that if I ever did tat again, she would call the Police on me.   This would lead to my second question:  Our President has been in office (along with her friends) for 20 years, does anyone have suggestions on how to change our regulations so that the terms can not be repeated  over and over?

You could adopt an amendment to the bylaws (following the procedures in your bylaws for doing so) to include a rule along the lines of “No officer may serve for more than X consecutive terms in office.” You could also just elect other people.

I might also suggest that you consult a professional parliamentarian in your area to discuss these myriad problems in more detail, and possibly also a lawyer. The National Association of Parliamentarians and American Institute of Parliamentarians can help you find the former.

Edited June 14, 2019 at 06:04 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

A motion ordering the manager, who, after all, is not a voting member of the Association, to take her seat behind the voting members, can be adopted by majority vote. I think you will find that this, by itself, will restore the "balance of power" in the meeting. The president of the Association can than preside, as intended.

[Joshua Katz]

Just to be clear, who is meeting? Is it the board or the owners? And who is the "we" that used to be able to talk?

In any event, people from the management company are employees. The owners and the board (depending on how governance is structured) get to boss them around, not the other way around.

[Rob Elsman]

I thought it seemed clear that the meetings being spoken of were general membership meetings of the Association.

The manager is most likely an employee of the management company, not the Association. The duties and responsibilities of the manager will likely be set out in the contract between the Association and the management company. At any rate, the manager is almost certainly not a voting member of the Association; therefore, what is said in RONR about the attendance and participation of non-members would apply, subject to any relevant terms of the contract.

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, reelsman said:

A motion ordering the manager, who, after all, is not a voting member of the Association, to take her seat behind the voting members, can be adopted by majority vote. I think you will find that this, by itself, will restore the "balance of power" in the meeting. The president of the Association can than preside, as intended.

Another option would be to Suspend the Rules in order to elect a chairman of the assembly’s choosing, if it turns out the President is not an improvement. (In this event, the society should also take steps to get a new President.)

[Atul Kapur]

5 hours ago, Constance said:

She then went on to tell us all that she uses  Robert's Rules 

Almost nothing of what you describe is actually in Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. I know that Mr. Martin mention that but I think that this fundamental point is at risk of being missed in this ongoing discussion.

 

Many people  claim that they're using "Robert's Rules" and then try to bully others in meetings. I agree with the recommendation of consulting a parliamentarian.

[Richard Brown]

On 6/14/2019 at 5:51 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Almost nothing of what you describe is actually in Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. I know that Mr. Martin mention that but I think that this fundamental point is at risk of being missed in this ongoing discussion.

 

Many people  claim that they're using "Robert's Rules" and then try to bully others in meetings. I agree with the recommendation of consulting a parliamentarian.

Constance, I agree with all aspects of Dr. Kapur's response as well as with all of the previous responses.  You have multiple issues, although they seem to stem from the fact that the Board, or the president or the membership is voluntarily relinquishing the rightful power of the membership to the management company.  It is a matter of taking charge of your own meetings.  Based on what you have told us, I think the personal services of a parliamentarian would be most useful.

If you have more specific questions, though, ask us and we will try to help.  It is best, though, if you ask them one at a time.