Appeal to the Assembly vs the Chair

[BabbsJohnson]

In presenting a matter to an assembly, is it ever available to the presenter for them to ask to hear from the assembly first, before the Chair?

Edited August 15, 2019 at 01:13 AM by .oOllXllOo.

[Chris Harrison]

Besides talking to everyone outside of a meeting (you have no obligation to talk to the President or anyone else for that matter) there is really no way to prevent the President from speaking in debate.  Granted, the President in order to remain impartial shouldn't be speaking in the first place but there is no way to actually prevent her from doing so if she is so inclined.  Also, if she is involved in your situation she should be turning the chair over to the Vice President and then she would be free to speak in debate as any other member.

[BabbsJohnson]

4 minutes ago, Chris Harrison said:

Besides talking to everyone outside of a meeting (you have no obligation to talk to the President or anyone else for that matter) there is really no way to prevent the President from speaking in debate.  Granted, the President in order to remain impartial shouldn't be speaking in the first place but there is no way to actually prevent her from doing so if she is so inclined.  Also, if she is involved in your situation she should be turning the chair over to the Vice President and then she would be free to speak in debate as any other member.

A special rule has been imposed on me that says all communication that I want to have with other board members, has to include her, if it’s email, which is how many communicate these days. I have no idea if this rule applies to other members.

i believe this is her way of controlling communication, as she can then privately tell the others not to respond, before any of them do.

Her goal, I think, is for me to have zero access to, and zero communication with, the other board members, outside of meetings, to the net effect of me having zero allies.

 

 

[BabbsJohnson]

10 minutes ago, Chris Harrison said:

Besides talking to everyone outside of a meeting (you have no obligation to talk to the President or anyone else for that matter) there is really no way to prevent the President from speaking in debate.  Granted, the President in order to remain impartial shouldn't be speaking in the first place but there is no way to actually prevent her from doing so if she is so inclined.  Also, if she is involved in your situation she should be turning the chair over to the Vice President and then she would be free to speak in debate as any other member.

We use small board rules, so she speak in debate, as well as gives long speeches before anyone else can talk, about how she feels about something, and also votes.

[Chris Harrison]

14 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

A special rule has been imposed on me that says all communication that I want to have with other board members, has to include her, if it’s email, which is how many communicate these days. I have no idea if this rule applies to other members.

i believe this is her way of controlling communication, as she can then privately tell the others not to respond, before any of them do.

Her goal, I think, is for me to have zero access to, and zero communication with, the other board members, outside of meetings, to the net effect of me having zero allies.

The question is under what authority does she or whoever imposed this "special rule" on you think they have the power to do so and make it stick?  I suspect that authority only exists in their own minds (though I could be wrong so you should do your research).  If that authority doesn't exist then it's up to you to decide whether this "special rule" should be obeyed. 

[BabbsJohnson]

1 hour ago, Chris Harrison said:

The question is under what authority does she or whoever imposed this "special rule" on you think they have the power to do so and make it stick?  I suspect that authority only exists in their own minds (though I could be wrong so you should do your research).  If that authority doesn't exist then it's up to you to decide whether this "special rule" should be obeyed. 

 Singling one member out and making a special rule for them that applies to something as important as communication with their board member peers,  seems like a kind of discrimination to me.

 As far as the bylaws are concerned, because I have read through them several times, and I can’t find anything in RONR that would allow this, it seems like that power cannot be created, to allow to make a special rule for just one member. 

 

Edited August 13, 2019 at 11:30 PM by .oOllXllOo.

[Josh Martin]

17 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

In presenting a matter to an assembly, is it ever available to the presenter for them to ask to hear from the assembly first, before the Chair?

The presenter is free to ask. The assembly will decide whether to grant the request. I think it might require a 2/3 vote, since it is essentially a suspension of the rules.

16 hours ago, Chris Harrison said:

Besides talking to everyone outside of a meeting (you have no obligation to talk to the President or anyone else for that matter) there is really no way to prevent the President from speaking in debate.  Granted, the President in order to remain impartial shouldn't be speaking in the first place but there is no way to actually prevent her from doing so if she is so inclined.  Also, if she is involved in your situation she should be turning the chair over to the Vice President and then she would be free to speak in debate as any other member.

Certainly it is not in order to prevent the President from speaking in debate at all, but I would think the rules could be suspended so that other members of the board have preference in recognition. The request seems to be that the other members speak first, not that the President is prevented from speaking at all.

15 hours ago, Chris Harrison said:

The question is under what authority does she or whoever imposed this "special rule" on you think they have the power to do so and make it stick?  I suspect that authority only exists in their own minds (though I could be wrong so you should do your research).  If that authority doesn't exist then it's up to you to decide whether this "special rule" should be obeyed. 

You disagree that the board could adopt this rule?

I would also argue it is a standing rule.

15 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

 Singling one member out and making a special rule for them that applies to something as important as communication with their board member peers,  seems like a kind of discrimination to me.

 As far as the bylaws are concerned, because I have read through them several times, and I can’t find anything in RONR that would allow this, it seems like that power cannot be created, to allow to make a special rule for just one member. 

It’s a standing rule, and in my view, it violates no rule in RONR. While the rules prevent depriving an individual member of the basic rights of membership (except by a provision in the bylaws or disciplinary proceedings), emailing other members is not a right of membership. The board could not, for instance, adopt a rule limiting your right (and only your right) to speak in debate in a meeting, but I don’t think any rule in RONR prevents the adoption of this email rule.

Edited August 14, 2019 at 01:44 PM by Josh Martin

[Chris Harrison]

14 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

You disagree that the board could adopt this rule?

I agree the Board could adopt this rule but I doubt they did and that is why I suggested the OP research where this authority comes from if it indeed exists.

[BabbsJohnson]

They did not adopt a rule. The lawyer told them they should tell me if this restriction, and they said to put that in the letter as well. 

The reason why I don’t think they could adopt such s rule is because RONR doesn’t deal with communications of this kind, there is nothing in the by laws that covers this, and there’s no authority given anywhere for this kind of restriction.