Guest Zev Posted August 5, 2019 at 05:34 PM Report Share Posted August 5, 2019 at 05:34 PM I would feel a whole lot more comfortable with the eighteen postings so far, excluding the OP, if this book contained a section that dealt with societies with nonmembers that had rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted August 8, 2019 at 05:05 AM Report Share Posted August 8, 2019 at 05:05 AM Quite a long discussion. My take is that the rule in the bylaws, since it confers a right upon non-members of the board who are members of the society, may not be suspended. However I do not think that the "right to speak" includes any right to "speak in debate". RONR clearly draws a distinction between the two. The Board is instructed to allot time for (general) members to be heard. Allot (verb, to give or apportion) contains an implicit power to limit the amount of time that is allotted. Thus the Board would have the power to adopt rules limiting, to a reasonable degree, the length of time an individual member may speak, as well as the overall time period or periods during which such members may speak. But the limits adopted should comport with the intent of the bylaws provision, not attempt to thwart it. A workable example, adopted by a board on which I served, was to allow thirty-minute periods for comments, with each comment limited to three minutes, unless either limit was extended by majority vote (or unanimous consent). During each meeting, two such comment periods were scheduled: one at the start of the meeting, and one after the completion of business and before adjournment. The second period rarely drew any comments at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts