Can you rate this statement for truth?

[Guest Frustrated]

I need to know if the following is truth or not:

I am grateful for your input, to any who give their opinion.

 

The Chair is not the boss of the meeting. The Rules are the boss of the meeting, not the Chair.
The authority of the Chair is over the knowledge and application of the Parliamentary Rules.

The Chair has no other authority in the meeting besides that.

Any other authority they attempt to assert is an abuse of power. 

[Josh Martin]

5 minutes ago, Guest Frustrated said:

I need to know if the following is truth or not:

I am grateful for your input, to any who give their opinion.

 

The Chair is not the boss of the meeting. The Rules are the boss of the meeting, not the Chair.
The authority of the Chair is over the knowledge and application of the Parliamentary Rules.

The Chair has no other authority in the meeting besides that.

Any other authority they attempt to assert is an abuse of power. 

Sounds right to me. I'd personally say the assembly is the boss of the meeting rather than saying that the rules are the boss, but the general sentiment appears to be accurate.

I would also add that, even to the extent of the chair's authority "over the knowledge and application of the Parliamentary Rules," this authority is subject to appeal. The ultimate authority in this regard rests with the assembly itself.

The duties and authority of the chair are discussed in RONR (12th ed.) 47:7. In addition, the following citations may be of particular interest.

"All of the duties of the presiding officer described above relate to the function of presiding over the assembly at its meetings. In addition, in many organized societies, the president has duties as an administrative or executive officer; but these are outside the scope of parliamentary law, and the president has such authority only insofar as the bylaws provide it." RONR (12th ed.) 47:20

"By electing a presiding officer, the assembly delegates to him the authority and duty to make necessary rulings on questions of parliamentary law. But any two members have the right to Appeal from his decision on such a question. By one member making (or “taking”) the appeal and another seconding it, the question is taken from the chair and vested in the assembly for final decision." RONR (12th ed.) 24:1

Is there a particular situation which gives rise to this general question? We may be able to provide further assistance in regard to the specific questions.

[Guest Frustrated]

5 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Is there a particular situation which gives rise to this general question? We may be able to provide further assistance in regard to the specific questions.

A chair I know is asserting power in ways it seems they should not be, and they seem to have a nebulous idea of the scope of their authority, and are generally remiss n their knowledge of RONR, and so this concept of their authority being over the rules and not the meeting  or the people in it is one I wanted to assert with confidence, because it is difficult to change that idea into something else.

If the bylaws only say that the President (who acts as chair in meetings) serves at the pleasure of the board, and that the board has full authority over all they do, is what you are saying still true about the scope of their authority, and can the board endow more authority to the President/Chair in some way?

For instance, let's say this group really likes their dictator-like President... can they vote that the President can veto any vote of the group, or can regularly violate decorum, or that they will never answer to Points of Order for example, or would those be examples of special rules that could not be put into place due to the fact that they alter or nullify the rights of the members?

[Richard Brown]

43 minutes ago, Guest Frustrated said:

A chair I know is asserting power in ways it seems they should not be, and they seem to have a nebulous idea of the scope of their authority, and are generally remiss n their knowledge of RONR, and so this concept of their authority being over the rules and not the meeting  or the people in it is one I wanted to assert with confidence, because it is difficult to change that idea into something else.

As Mr. Martin correctly stated in his response to your first question, the chair has the primary, or perhaps the initial duty of enforcing the rules as he understands them to be, but his rulings are subject to appeal to the assembly which has the final word.

45 minutes ago, Guest Frustrated said:

If the bylaws only say that the President (who acts as chair in meetings) serves at the pleasure of the board, and that the board has full authority over all they do, is what you are saying still true about the scope of their authority, and can the board endow more authority to the President/Chair in some way?

I don't understand what you are asking here.  The board might have some latitude to prescribe certain duties and rights of the presiding officer, but only within the parameters of the bylaws, especially with regard to the powers of the board.  The boardd cannot give the chair more power than is permitted in the bylaws and cannot grant more power than the bylaws give it the power to grant.  There are usually limitations on the power of a board.  If you can better explain what you are getting at, perhaps we can help you more.  This  all seems rather strange and not very specific.

 

50 minutes ago, Guest Frustrated said:

For instance, let's say this group really likes their dictator-like President... can they vote that the President can veto any vote of the group, or can regularly violate decorum, or that they will never answer to Points of Order for example, or would those be examples of special rules that could not be put into place due to the fact that they alter or nullify the rights of the members?

This depends mostly on how much power the board is given in the bylaws and whether it is subject to the orders of the membership.  Does the board have the power to adopt special rules of order?  Although not unheard of, such power in a board is unusual except in organizations where there is essentially no voting membership and the board is the sole governing body.   What EXACTLY do your bylaws say about the power of the board?  Please quote that provision exactly, verbatim.    We need an exact quote, not a paraphrase. 

It would also be helpful for us to know exactly what the bylaws say about how and by whom (which body) the bylaws can be amended.   The body which has the power to amend the bylaws can put just about any provision it wants to in the bylaws regardless of how unwise it might be.   I question whether your board has that power, both with regard to adopting special rules of order and especially with regard to amending the bylaws.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Frustrated said:

If the bylaws only say that the President (who acts as chair in meetings) serves at the pleasure of the board, and that the board has full authority over all they do, is what you are saying still true about the scope of their authority, and can the board endow more authority to the President/Chair in some way?

Yes, what I am saying remains correct. The board cannot endow more authority to the President unless the board is authorized by the bylaws to delegate its authority. It should also be noted that the board also only has the authority granted by the bylaws (or by vote of the society's assembly referring individual matters to it), and even in the event the board is granted the power to delegate its authority, it can only delegate authority that it has.

"As a general principle, a board cannot delegate its authority—that is, it cannot empower a subordinate group to act independently in its name—except as may be authorized by the bylaws (of the society) or other instrument under which the board is constituted; but any board can appoint committees to work under its supervision or according to its specific instructions. Such committees of the board always report to the board." RONR (12th ed.) 49:12

"A society has no executive board, nor can its officers act as a board, except as the bylaws may provide; and when so established, the board has only such power as is delegated to it by the bylaws or by vote of the society’s assembly referring individual matters to it." RONR (12th ed.)

1 hour ago, Guest Frustrated said:

For instance, let's say this group really likes their dictator-like President... can they vote that the President can veto any vote of the group, or can regularly violate decorum, or that they will never answer to Points of Order for example, or would those be examples of special rules that could not be put into place due to the fact that they alter or nullify the rights of the members?

I don't know what "this group" refers to here, so I'll cover both possibilities.

Generally, I do not think that the board could adopt rules of this nature. Unless the bylaws provide otherwise, a subordinate board may only adopt rules for its own use, not rules for the society, and in addition, a subordinate board may not adopt rules which conflict with the rules of the society (including the parliamentary authority), and all of these rules would conflict with RONR (and quite possibly would also conflict with the society's other rules.

"The executive board of an organized society operates under the society’s bylaws, the society’s parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules of the society which may be applicable to it. Such a board may adopt its own special rules of order or standing rules only to the extent that such rules do not conflict with any of the rules of the society listed above." RONR (12th ed.) 49:15

I think that the membership of the society could generally adopt rules of order which provide that Points of Order or Appeals may not be raised by persons other than the presiding officer, or that the rules of decorum are not applicable to the presiding officer, although such rules do not seem terribly wise, and such rules would be extremely unusual. I am somewhat less certain whether the rule regarding a presidential veto could be adopted by a special rule of order. It is less clear to me that this rule relates to the conduct of business in meetings or the duties of officers in that connection, and it may well also be that such a rule would conflict with the rules in the bylaws. Such a rule could be adopted in the bylaws. Some societies adopt rules of this nature, generally also providing a mechanism to override the veto.

A special rule of order may be adopted by a 2/3 vote with notice or by a vote of a majority of the entire membership. The rules for amending the bylaws should be specified in your bylaws.

[Guest Frustrated]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

This depends mostly on how much power the board is given in the bylaws and whether it is subject to the orders of the membership.  Does the board have the power to adopt special rules of order?  Although not unheard of, such power in a board is unusual except in organizations where there is essentially no voting membership and the board is the sole governing body.   What EXACTLY do your bylaws say about the power of the board?  Please quote that provision exactly, verbatim.    We need an exact quote, not a paraphrase. 

It would also be helpful for us to know exactly what the bylaws say about how and by whom (which body) the bylaws can be amended.   The body which has the power to amend the bylaws can put just about any provision it wants to in the bylaws regardless of how unwise it might be.   I question whether your board has that power, both with regard to adopting special rules of order and especially with regard to amending the bylaws.

Hopefully this is what you're looking for. This is the quote form the bylaws about the role of the President:

"The President shall be the principal executive officer of the Association, and shall, subject to the control of the Board of Directors, supervise, direct, and control all of the business and affairs of the Association and the officers thereof, He shall preside in the absence of a Chairman of the Board at all meetings of the members of the Association, and of the Board of Directors. He shall sign all checks, deeds, mortgages, bonds, contracts, agreements, or other instruments. He shall also have all the general powers and perform all of the duties usually vested in the office of president of a corporation, including all the powers and duties as may from time to time, be prescribed by the Board of Directors, or by these bylaws."

 

Amending the Bylaws information is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BAQ91xV0Z088M3xYKTVDmnxWxtc2AZUJT6AsmOc46gk/edit?usp=sharing

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Frustrated said:

"The President shall be the principal executive officer of the Association, and shall, subject to the control of the Board of Directors, supervise, direct, and control all of the business and affairs of the Association and the officers thereof, He shall preside in the absence of a Chairman of the Board at all meetings of the members of the Association, and of the Board of Directors. He shall sign all checks, deeds, mortgages, bonds, contracts, agreements, or other instruments. He shall also have all the general powers and perform all of the duties usually vested in the office of president of a corporation, including all the powers and duties as may from time to time, be prescribed by the Board of Directors, or by these bylaws."

Thank you. There is certainly no doubt that the President has broad administrative authority under the provisions quoted here, including the authority to "subject to the control of the Board of Directors, supervise, direct, and control all of the business and affairs of the Association and the officers thereof" and also to "sign all checks, deeds, mortgages, bonds, contracts, agreements, or other instruments," as well as "also have all the general powers and perform all of the duties usually vested in the office of president of a corporation, including all the powers and duties as may from time to time, be prescribed by the Board of Directors, or by these bylaws." So it would seem the board does, in fact, have the authority to delegate authority to the President. Nonetheless, the board can only delegate authority that the board has.

These provisions do not, however, in my view suggest that the President currently has the power to "veto any vote of the group, or can regularly violate decorum, or that they will never answer to Points of Order" or that the board can grant such power.

Edited October 8, 2020 at 08:27 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

"The Rules" is nothing but a book on my coffee table.  It is boss of nothing.  It cannot see, speak, taste, touch, or smell.  It does not have legs, opposing thumbs, or prehensile tail.

In a deliberative assembly, it is the members present in the meeting room or area that give the rules their effect.  The members are the boss.  They have agreed among themselves to behave in certain ways to make meetings more productive, more interesting, and more pleasant. 

[George Mervosh]

11 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

"The Rules" is nothing but a book on my coffee table.  

A good friend of ours used to keep it under his elbow, but I digress.   

[Richard Brown]

50 minutes ago, Guest Frustrated said:

Hopefully this is what you're looking for. This is the quote form the bylaws about the role of the President:

Thank you for the provisions regarding the role and powers of the president, but we still don't know what the bylaws say about the  powers of the Board. That is pretty critical here.

[Guest Frustrated]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Thank you for the provisions regarding the role and powers of the president, but we still don't know what the bylaws say about the  powers of the Board. That is pretty critical here.

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L6b3AUI8IA8ZokBm9fp-anuOQz6oW2VXuARWX4nHJck/edit?usp=sharing

[Atul Kapur]

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Thank you for the provisions regarding the role and powers of the president, but we still don't know what the bylaws say about the  powers of the Board. That is pretty critical here.

Richard, this part seems pretty all-encompassing

6 hours ago, Guest Frustrated said:

shall, subject to the control of the Board of Directors, supervise, direct, and control all of the business and affairs of the Association and the officers thereof,

I'm not sure how the bylaws could be clearer.