Presidential power

[Guest Brian WIlson]

The President of our HOA arbitrarily cuts off Property Owner/Members apparently when she has "heard enough, not necessarily before the assembled membership has heard the issue in question. In the absence of a specific time limit in the By-Laws (there isn't), are there any requirements/rules for setting a specific time limit for question/answer/debate prior to the floor open to debate? Is there a procedure by which such discussion may continue without one - through 'Point of Order'? - regardless of the President's position?

[Richard Brown]

RONR provides that members may speak two times for up to ten minutes per speech on each motion, but cannot make the second speech until all other members wishing to speak have spoken.  In addition, any member may move "The Previous Question", which, if seconded and passed by a two thirds vote, cuts off debate.  The presiding officer does not have the right to cut off debate.  Only the assembly can do that by a two thirds vote.   Neither can any member stop debate by shouting "I call the Question".  Only the assembly itself can do that by means of a motion, a second and a two thirds vote.  The motion for The Previous Question is not debatable.

Note:  If you have rules to the contrary re length and number of speeches, your rules would be controlling.

[George Mervosh]

2 hours ago, Guest Brian WIlson said:

The President of our HOA arbitrarily cuts off Property Owner/Members apparently when she has "heard enough, not necessarily before the assembled membership has heard the issue in question. In the absence of a specific time limit in the By-Laws (there isn't), are there any requirements/rules for setting a specific time limit for question/answer/debate prior to the floor open to debate? Is there a procedure by which such discussion may continue without one - through 'Point of Order'? - regardless of the President's position?

I'm not sure Mr. Brown's reply is applicable as I'm not clear if the motion has been made, seconded, and stated by the chair given the facts presented. I'm not even clear what assembly is meeting here - the board or the HOA itself. Nor is it clear if he's cutting off members of the assembly that is meeting, or non-members.  

Many more facts would be helpful.

Edited December 16, 2019 at 09:46 PM by George Mervosh

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

I'm not sure Mr. Brown's reply is applicable as I'm not clear if the motion has been made, seconded, and stated by the chair given the facts presented. I'm not even clear what assembly is meeting here - the board or the HOA itself. Nor is it clear if he's cutting off members of the assembly that is meeting, or non-members.  

Many more facts would be helpful.

I agree with Mr. Mervosh. We need more facts. My response was perhaps premature and was based on the assumption that a motion was being debated and that the people the chair was cutting off are members of the body which was meeting. 

[Guest Brian Wilson]

Thanks for the input - sorry if I wasn't clear.

We are the New Kids in a 20 yr old subdivision, trying to deal with ancient history and Old Boy "residential seniority". The By-Laws state Roberts Rules govern each meeting. The monthly meeting is with the Board before the Members-Property Owners. The President and Board do not ascribe to Roberts Rules as a matter of practice, except in a casually applied 'form'. As a starting point, I wanted to learn if the arbitrary application of "time limits" for comments was in harmony with the President's non-specified 'authority' via Robers Rules, i.e., without a specific rule/limitation, the President could do what she pleased unless shouted down (literally) by the assembled property owners. (This actually happened this afternoon. And while the President ultimately demurred, this was a helluva way to run a meeting with millions of dollars  on the line). 

There are a multitude of other issues that should be minimized or eliminated by the application of Roberts Rules. The President's 'authority' - or not - to shut down discussion, barring a rule otherwise, seemed like the best place to start. 

I hope that clarifies and otherwise complicated matter.

[Richard Brown]

Guest Brian, You still haven’t told us if the president is cutting off members while they are debating motions which are on the floor or if something else is going on. That is a critical piece of information, as there should be very little if any comments from members unless a motion is being debated.

There are ways to limit debate, but the president does not have the unilateral authority to do so.

[Guest Brian]

Something else is going on.

As noted above: The President and Board do not subscribe to Robert's Rules as a matter of practice, only in a casually applied 'form'. 'Motions' are not 'debated on the floor' because no motions per se are made. A POA Member raises his hand. When called upon by the President, asks a question of the Board or raises an issue. It is then 'discussed' without any of the structure imposed by Robert's Rules. Other Board Members and Property Owners often shout out comments w/o being recognized, etc. The familiarity of the Old Boy/residential seniority and subsequent 'customs' have created a tiered internal society of regular attendees who ignore or are ignorant of the requirements of Robert's Rules despite their inclusion in the By-Laws. After a nod to minutes, reports, Old Business, etc., the Rules are shelved and the Meeting devolves into a semi-orderly bar scene - if you'll pardon the oxymoron. 

Hopefully, this is the clarifying information required. At bottom, I'm trying to get a toe-hold via the By-Laws that specifically state: Robert's Rules of Order shall govern the conduct of all meetings of the Board of Directors...etc.". If I can provide the 'chapter and verse' that stipulates " ...the president does not have the unilateral authority to do so.", I may then have the floor time to make the necessary motion(s) that the By-Laws be obeyed as written and Robert's Rules "shall govern".

Thanks for your indulgence. I realize this may stretch the boundaries of the Q&A Forum.

[Joshua Katz]

It seems to me that one difficulty here (among many) is that the context suggests that we're talking about non-board members speaking at a board meeting. Is that correct?

In any event, I'd suggest backing up. If there's no effort to follow the rules of parliamentary procedure, it seems unlikely to me that you'll persuade people to stop doing something that violates rights (I'm not sure yet that it does) by citing a rule about it. Rather, you need to suggest directly why it is bad and try to persuade people on that ground.

If you'd like to start following RONR (and are in fact a member of the body that is meeting) I'd suggest bringing in one thing at a time rather than trying to encourage compliance with the entirety in one fell swoop.

[Atul Kapur]

In other words, Guest Brian, be careful what you wish for. Under RONR,  non-members of the group that is meaning do not have the right to participate, ask questions of, or even attend meetings of the group.

And the chair does have authority to act alone on this matter. "An assembly has the right to protect itself from annoyance by nonmembers, and it's full of authority in that regard ... can be exercised by be chair acting alone." (RONR 11th ed., p.648, lines 14-17).

[Josh Martin]

7 hours ago, Guest Brian said:

As noted above: The President and Board do not subscribe to Robert's Rules as a matter of practice, only in a casually applied 'form'. 'Motions' are not 'debated on the floor' because no motions per se are made. A POA Member raises his hand. When called upon by the President, asks a question of the Board or raises an issue. It is then 'discussed' without any of the structure imposed by Robert's Rules. Other Board Members and Property Owners often shout out comments w/o being recognized, etc. The familiarity of the Old Boy/residential seniority and subsequent 'customs' have created a tiered internal society of regular attendees who ignore or are ignorant of the requirements of Robert's Rules despite their inclusion in the By-Laws. After a nod to minutes, reports, Old Business, etc., the Rules are shelved and the Meeting devolves into a semi-orderly bar scene - if you'll pardon the oxymoron. 

Board meetings do operate under somewhat relaxed rules and permit discussion without a pending motion, so the President should not be cutting off board members who have properly sought recognition unless the board adopts a motion to end the discussion. Recognition is required, and only members of the board have the right to speak, so the President should be cutting off board members who shout out without being recognized, and should cut off non-board members, but she should cut them off immediately, not based upon her whims. The board may adopt motions or rules permitting non-board members to speak (preferably also establishing clear limits on when, how long, and on what subjects they may speak) if it wishes to do so.

So based on the additional facts, it actually sounds like the problem is that the President isn’t cutting people off more frequently.

If the President does cut off a board member who has properly sought recognition, a Point of Order, followed by an Appeal if necessary, would be appropriate.

Edited December 17, 2019 at 06:17 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest More enlightenment!]

Thanks much

Mr Katz - Incorrect. Sorry for any confusion.  These meetings are advertised as a "POA Board Meeting". Held monthly. All Property Owners are Members. The Board is elected by the Property Owners. I assume only "Members" are permitted to speak - no one else has tried or been in attendance.  Yesterday was my 3rd meeting. Members' residence/"Membership" goes back 15 years, the beginning of the 'development'.

"it seems unlikely to me that you'll persuade people to stop doing something that violates rights (I'm not sure yet that it does) by citing a rule about it" That is the crux of the matter. The By-Laws state under RULES OF ORDER FOR MEETINGS:  RRoO "shall govern the conduct of all meetings...". Aside from the Minutes, New Business, Committee Reports and Old Business format, no other rules or procedures are followed or practiced (see 'bar scene' analogy above). My assumption is RRoO  provides a format for me to introduce a motion (?) to the effect the majority of the last 3 Meetings has been in direct violation of the By-Laws inasmuch as RRoO are not being followed at all. The Board must correct this immediately (with or without a Resolution) to be in compliance. 

What the penalties may be - if any- to compel this action is unknown. Also unknown is if the Board as the authority to suspend RRoO for any portion of prior or subsequent meetings. The By-Laws do not grant that power specifically.

 

 Mr. Kapur - Thanks for the sighting (RONR 11th ed., p.648, lines 14-17) altho I have yet to see any annoying outsiders. Yet. OTOH, it's entirely possible simple laziness,   cronyism, skullduggery, ignorance and/or apathy have led to this more comfortable but unproductive conduct since no one is demanding otherwise. For the uninitiated or ignorant, RRoR can be clunky and gum up the wheels of progress. The bigger job may be mustering the tolerance needed until a comfortable level of functional expertise is accomplished.  

Thanks again for the guidance.

 

 

 

[Bruce Lages]

Guest More enlightenment - To be clear - and restate what others have said above - if this is a POA Board meeting, then the "no one else" or the "annoying outsiders" you refer to are everyone who is not a Board member. Being a member of the property owners association does not grant any rights with respect to Board meetings unless the Board itself votes to grant such rights as they deem fit.

But note - since this is a property owners association, some rights may be conferred by statutes governing such associations -only a lawyer can provide further guidance on that.

[Josh Martin]

6 minutes ago, Guest More enlightenment! said:

These meetings are advertised as a "POA Board Meeting". Held monthly. All Property Owners are Members. The Board is elected by the Property Owners. I assume only "Members" are permitted to speak - no one else has tried or been in attendance.  Yesterday was my 3rd meeting. Members' residence/"Membership" goes back 15 years, the beginning of the 'development'.

At a board meeting, only members of the board have a right to speak. Everyone else is a “nonmember” in the context of the rules for the meeting, even although they may be members of the association.

Members of the association may speak at meetings of the association.

7 minutes ago, Guest More enlightenment! said:

The By-Laws state under RULES OF ORDER FOR MEETINGS:  RRoO "shall govern the conduct of all meetings...". Aside from the Minutes, New Business, Committee Reports and Old Business format, no other rules or procedures are followed or practiced (see 'bar scene' analogy above). My assumption is RRoO  provides a format for me to introduce a motion (?) to the effect the majority of the last 3 Meetings has been in direct violation of the By-Laws inasmuch as RRoO are not being followed at all. The Board must correct this immediately (with or without a Resolution) to be in compliance. 

You could introduce such a motion at a meeting where you are a member. If you are not a member of the board, you will have to wait until the next meeting of the association.

The motion should be reworded to actually state the desired action (ordering the board to make changes to how its meetings are run, for instance) rather than simply making an observation.

10 minutes ago, Guest More enlightenment! said:

What the penalties may be - if any- to compel this action is unknown. Also unknown is if the Board as the authority to suspend RRoO for any portion of prior or subsequent meetings. The By-Laws do not grant that power specifically.

RONR permits an assembly to suspend the rules for a specific purpose by a 2/3 vote. Certain rules may not be suspended, and the rules may not be suspended in their entirety.

As for compelling action, I would look into what the bylaws say about removing board members from office, or see Ch. XX if they are silent.

11 minutes ago, Guest More enlightenment! said:

Mr. Kapur - Thanks for the sighting (RONR 11th ed., p.648, lines 14-17) altho I have yet to see any annoying outsiders.

At a board meeting, anyone who is not a member of the board is an outsider. I will refrain from judgment on whether they are annoying.

[Guest Brian]

Josh Martin - I may have inadvertently failed to clearly state the composition of the POA. As noted above - before I saw your post - I wrote: These meetings are advertised as a "POA Board Meeting". Held monthly. All Property Owners are Members. The Board is elected by the Property Owners. 

The President cuts off members (elected Officers)  of the Board (Vice President, Treasurer, etc) and Members of the POA indiscriminately. There has not been a "point of order" or adoption of special rules or exemptions during any of the 3 (3 hr) meetings I've attended. 

Every Property Owner is a Member of the POA and my raise their hand for the President's recognition. No other Rule is applied. It is up to the Property Owner Member to determine how long s/he will speak - unless/until cut off by the President.

Therein lies the problem.

I hope this clarifies the issue better than what I have written above.

 

 

[Richard Brown]

6 minutes ago, Guest More enlightenment! said:

Mr Katz - Incorrect. Sorry for any confusion.  These meetings are advertised as a "POA Board Meeting". Held monthly. All Property Owners are Members. The Board is elected by the Property Owners. I assume only "Members" are permitted to speak - no one else has tried or been in attendance. 

I question whether you are understanding one point that my colleagues are trying to make. You made the statement that “all property owners are members “.  
 

Here is the problem (or one of them): property owners might be members of the ASSOCIATION, but they are not members of the BOARD. As far as RONR is concerned, they are guests. In other words, nonmembers. 
Per the rules in RONR, non-members and guests have no rights whatsoever. They do not even have the right to be present, let alone to speak, unless your own rules or some superior law grants them that right.

Many HOA’s and state laws grant residents or members of a homeowners association the right to attend and to speak at board meetings. However, we do not know what those provisions might be and are not commenting on them. 

[Josh Martin]

2 minutes ago, Guest Brian said:

Josh Martin - I may have inadvertently failed to clearly state the composition of the POA. As noted above - before I saw your post - I wrote: These meetings are advertised as a "POA Board Meeting". Held monthly. All Property Owners are Members. The Board is elected by the Property Owners. 

The President cuts off members (elected Officers)  of the Board (Vice President, Treasurer, etc) and Members of the POA indiscriminately. There has not been a "point of order" or adoption of special rules or exemptions during any of the 3 (3 hr) meetings I've attended. 

Every Property Owner is a Member of the POA and my raise their hand for the President's recognition. No other Rule is applied. It is up to the Property Owner Member to determine how long s/he will speak - unless/until cut off by the President.

Therein lies the problem.

I hope this clarifies the issue better than what I have written above.

Unless your organization has adopted a rule to the contrary, only board members may speak at board meetings. Board members may speak, but they need to seek recognition.

The President should not be cutting off board members who have properly sought recognition. She should be cutting off board members who have not been recognized, and she should be cutting off non-board members.

[Guest Brian]

Mr Martin -  

Board members may speak, but they need to seek recognition.

The President should not be cutting off board members who have properly sought recognition. She should be cutting off board members who have not been recognized, and she should be cutting off non-board members. 

No Board member "seeks recognition" as per the context of Robert's Rules. After the presentation of Minutes/Old/New Business, questions/comments from the Property Owners in attendance are solicited by the President. This is SOP - and the primary time Order becomes chaos. Members attempt to ask questions/present issues. They are often interrupted by one or more Board Member, cut off by the President and/or ruled their question/topic will not be addressed. Meetings are closed by order of the President regardless of pending questions and without a Motion/Second from a Board Member.

If RRoO does not address solutions to such issues except under specific circumstances, I suspect I either misunderstood the basic function of the Rules or the Rules anticipate Organizations/Members will be auto-compelled to behave  themselves!!

Thanks for your help!

[Atul Kapur]

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) is meant for use by honorable people. So, yes, it does expect people to behave themselves (there is no such thing as an RONR Police Force).

RONR is also meant for use at and by meetings of members.

• If it's a meeting of members of the association, then it speaks to the rights and obligations of members of the association.
• If it's a meeting of the association's board, then it speaks to the rights and obligations of the members of the board.

In both cases, non-members have no rights, even if they are members of the association (but not the board) during a board meeting.

Your POA apparently gives non-board-members certain rights at a board meeting (whether by bylaw, by resolution, or because they are required to do so by applicable law). This is not in RONR, so RONR will not have details on how to proceed in this situation*. If the document that gives non-members these rights does not clarify the details, then the board can adopt a motion on procedure for their participation.

 

*As an analogy, if I buy and install an after-market turbo-charger on my car engine, the owner's manual will not tell me how to deal with problems related to that.

Edited December 17, 2019 at 08:05 PM by Atul Kapur

[Josh Martin]

5 hours ago, Guest Brian said:

No Board member "seeks recognition" as per the context of Robert's Rules. After the presentation of Minutes/Old/New Business, questions/comments from the Property Owners in attendance are solicited by the President. This is SOP - and the primary time Order becomes chaos. Members attempt to ask questions/present issues. They are often interrupted by one or more Board Member, cut off by the President and/or ruled their question/topic will not be addressed. Meetings are closed by order of the President regardless of pending questions and without a Motion/Second from a Board Member.

Yes, these are the sorts of things rules of order are intended to prevent.

The President may declare a meeting adjourned if the meeting has already completed its entire order of business or the assembly has established a time for adjournment in advance (or in case of an emergency, such as a fire). Otherwise, it is correct that the President should not be declaring a meeting adjourned except upon the adoption of a motion to do so.

Unless the organization or the board has adopted its own rules on this matter, or there are such rules in applicable law, the President should not be soliciting any questions from the property owners in attendance unless so ordered by the board. Since the property owners (properly speaking) should not be permitted to speak to begin with, the question of interrupting them is moot. If the board does adopt rules permitting property owners to speak, the board may establish in those rules whether interruptions by board members are permitted.

Board members may speak, but they must seek recognition. The President should insist that board members seek recognition in order to speak, and note that interruptions will not be permitted. She should immediately cut off anyone who does not seek recognition. Eventually, people will get the hint.

So, as I have said previously, the problem doesn’t seem to be that the President is cutting people off, the problem is that she isn’t cutting people off enough.

5 hours ago, Guest Brian said:

If RRoO does not address solutions to such issues except under specific circumstances, I suspect I either misunderstood the basic function of the Rules or the Rules anticipate Organizations/Members will be auto-compelled to behave  themselves!!

RONR does not anticipate that members will be auto-compelled to behave themselves. There are rules in place for the chairman to enforce order, and for members to raise Points of Order and Appeals if necessary. RONR also provides mechanisms for the assembly to adopt rules to deviate from RONR, such as rules permitting nonmembers of the board to speak at board meetings.

I agree completely that your meetings are utter chaos and need more control. This is why the President needs to enforce the rules (not her whims) more strictly.

4 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Your POA apparently gives non-board-members certain rights at a board meeting (whether by bylaw, by resolution, or because they are required to do so by applicable law).

I am not certain this is correct. Given the description so far, I don’t think we should assume that anything the board does is the result of a rule on the subject.

[Joshua Katz]

I don't think this issue of cutting off (or not cutting off) speakers is the main issue. The main issue is, as you said, that the meetings appear to be utter chaos. It is true that your bylaws require you to use RONR, but that only pushes the issue back one level - people who are intend on violating rules (often because "we've always done it this way" or "we all get along") will violate bylaws too. This being a POA, you may have some legal remedies beyond the scope of this forum. But in terms of parliamentary procedure, the rules are not self-enforcing. They are intended for organizations that wish to follow them - they aren't rules in the sense of the 10 commandments or laws, but rather rules that, when followed, make the conduct of business more orderly and efficient. There are no RONR police - it is up to the organization to follow them. If a majority do not wish to, they will not be followed. If a majority does want to follow them, but remains silent when others violate them, they will still not be followed. 

So, let me ask two questions. First, are you a board member? Not a member of the POA, but of the board? Second, what is one improvement in meeting procedure you think could be implemented right now, and would make things better? Try to choose something that would immediately make meetings more pleasant or faster. Implementing one such change, with a positive impact, will lead to openness to more rules. When I joined an organization that routinely ignored its bylaws and RONR, and started pushing for more following of RONR, our meetings went from 4 hours to 2 hours (we then spent the remaining 2 hours chatting in the parking lot, but it was still an improvement). That made people very open to learning more.

[Guest Brian]

Mr Katz - Thanks for the questions.

No, I am not a Board Member. As a Property Owner, my dues make me a Member of the Property Owners Association that elects the Board.

The 'one improvement" is precisely what brought me to this point. Simply put: The final article in the By-Laws state RR "shall govern the conduct of all meetings of the Board...".  Beyond the format for opening the meeting, they don't. Neither do members of the Association who wish to questions/discuss various issues. Failing to follow RR, the "discussion" often devolve into indistinguishable cross talk that, most importantly, leave questions unanswered and issues unresolved. Or maybe not. Without the requirement of RR, who knows what may have/have not been resolved?

To that point, I did not present my initial question here properly. Rather than inquiring about the proper procedure to move the President from arbitrary interruptions that often initiate the chaos, I should ask: How can I use the By-Laws requirement to adhere to RR to get the Board to follow them as required?  The resulting 'order' would/could ultimately be constructive to all parties and all meetings. Strategically, I believe the Board's reaction to the Motion (if that's what I am proposing) would establish the necessary precedent for all conduct at future meetings. Without compliance with the By-Laws re RRoO, at least a principled - if not legal - argument could be made for any failure of the Board to resolve certain important (financial, legal) matters before it, the Board's 'resolutions' to which will ultimately and negatively impact the members of the Association through increased dues, debts, and regulations. 

Ultimately, to your second question, I am trying to find/craft the proper 'script' (according to RR) to put the Resolution (if that's what it is) before the Board next month., e.g.,    "I propose the Board resolve to conduct this and all future meetings in accordance with the Association By-Laws, Article XVIII,  Rules of Order for Meetings; that require Robert's Rules of Order shall govern the conduct of all meetings of the Board of Directors."

If the Board agrees via RR procedure, problem solved. Eventually. With some practice. If the Board refuses, then I should be able to explore the legal bindings, if any, of all past/future 'resolutions' made in violation.

I appreciate your - and everyone's - time, attention and guidance. I apologize for the ultimate intention for my initial inquiry being 'clear as mud'; I'm obviously a rookie in this game. Your collective responses have been most edifying and should make the arrival of a copy of RONR easier to navigate.

 

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Guest Brian said:

Ultimately, to your second question, I am trying to find/craft the proper 'script' (according to RR) to put the Resolution (if that's what it is) before the Board next month., e.g.,    "I propose the Board resolve to conduct this and all future meetings in accordance with the Association By-Laws, Article XVIII,  Rules of Order for Meetings; that require Robert's Rules of Order shall govern the conduct of all meetings of the Board of Directors."

 

In my experience, this will not work. It's sort of like a law that says "follow the law." If they didn't obey it the first time, why obey it the second time?

As to the effect of motions adopted through improper procedure, we don't speak to legal here, but in terms of RONR, the vast majority are perfectly well operative. Most violations of procedure need to be objected to at the time - and you can't raise a point of order since you are not a member.

2 hours ago, Guest Brian said:

The 'one improvement" is precisely what brought me to this point. Simply put: The final article in the By-Laws state RR "shall govern the conduct of all meetings of the Board...".  Beyond the format for opening the meeting, they don't. Neither do members of the Association who wish to questions/discuss various issues. Failing to follow RR, the "discussion" often devolve into indistinguishable cross talk that, most importantly, leave questions unanswered and issues unresolved. Or maybe not. Without the requirement of RR, who knows what may have/have not been resolved?

 

This is not the sort of thing I meant. First of all, RONR contains a lot of rules. I doubt you know them all, let alone the members of your board who don't even see the problem. Perfect compliance with RONR is just not in the cards at the moment.

Suppose you walked into a banquet hall, and found people not using silverware, pouring their drinks on their faces, and generally eating in the most disgusting manner. It wouldn't make sense to try to teach them to behave better by starting with the distinctions between the dessert fork and the salad fork, would it? They're not doing anything right; they don't need nuances, they need general principles. 

Your board has many problems, it sounds like, including prominently a culture problem: they just don't have a culture of knowledge and use of parliamentary procedure, resulting in chaotic, less-than-productive meetings. You could, of course, work to elect a board with a different culture. In the meantime, you need to encourage the use of RONR slowly. For instance, you could start by explaining to members (individually, outside of meetings, and privately, to minimize resistance) what a main motion is, and how to make one. Think of it like teaching culture to barbarians - simple changes first. If they make and debate motions, they will find that, if debate is limited to the pending motion, it is more focused. A motion presents a binary choice - and amendments present simply a series of binary choices, as do even motions with blanks because of the way RONR fills blanks. When there is too much debate in the absence of a motion, it encourages people to, instead of responding to each other, make a series of disconnected speeches on different topics, and the discussion often goes in circles with no real resolution. Thus, teaching them how motions work, and getting them to try it just once, will typically result in a more efficient meeting, and happier participants - who will be more likely to want to learn more in the future.

The same is not true, by the way, for attempting to get people to follow all of RONR in one fell swoop when they are not experienced with it. The typical result of that scenario is excessive arguing over the rules applicable to a given situation, pickiness about form, and other misapplications. Then the meeting takes longer than it used to, and people abandon the project.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Guest Brian said:

Ultimately, to your second question, I am trying to find/craft the proper 'script' (according to RR) to put the Resolution (if that's what it is) before the Board next month., e.g.,    "I propose the Board resolve to conduct this and all future meetings in accordance with the Association By-Laws, Article XVIII,  Rules of Order for Meetings; that require Robert's Rules of Order shall govern the conduct of all meetings of the Board of Directors."

I would note that this resolution should perhaps include some additional clauses to adopt some additional rules, since it seems that you wish to deviate from RONR in at least some respects. Specifically, it appears that you wish to adopt rules which permit persons who are members of the association, but not members of the board, to speak at board meetings in at least some circumstances.

In any event, since you are not a member of the board, you cannot make a resolution at a board meeting. Only members of the board have the right to make motions at board meetings. You can make a motion at the next meeting of the full association.

Edited December 18, 2019 at 02:42 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Brian]

Mr Katz - "When there is too much debate in the absence of a motion, it encourages people to, instead of responding to each other, make a series of disconnected speeches on different topics, and the discussion often goes in circles with no real resolution."

Hold your calls - I think we have a winner! Indeed, I will attempt the Out In The Parking Lot approach. Altho the 'barbarian' reference is appropriate.

Thanks