Are any of these things appropriate?

[NotSure]

Would it ever be appropriate, according to RONR, for a chair to any of the following, and does it change anything that this person is also the "President" (of an HOA... no special powers listed in bylaws)? If any of these are inappropriate, how bad of a breech would they be considered, if in a group where the rules were being used properly?

1. After a nomination from the floor for an eligible person to become a Board member, during an annual meeting, to initiate a vote asking for the Board to vote on whether they wanted that particular person on the Board? There were two spots open, and no other floor nominations.

2. To initiate a vote asking for the Board to vote the character of another Board member?

3. To publicly ask other Board members to comment during a meeting if a Board member is being sincere in something they have said about themselves? 

4. To state publicly that they themselves did not believe a Board member was being sincere about something they have said about themselves? 

5. To initiate a spontaneous vote during a public Board meeting, asking the other Board members if they wanted a specific Board member to resign? (This was after one Board member said "You should resign" during a public Board meeting to a specific Board member, and the President, instead of calling that member to order, then asked the others to vote on the spot if they felt the same way).

6. To repeatedly admonish and criticize a Board member publicly during a meeting?

 

 

Thanks for your time

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Puzzling]

NO to all,

If it is an general membership meeting, there is no way that only the board members may vote.

Also if there are more than a dozen members the president should act impartial. 

Others I guess will comment in more detail, but get the newest ( 12th) edition of RONR and study the parts on president /chairs and on discipline. Also find some members who agree with you (and get rid of this president) 

Good luck

[Josh Martin]

41 minutes ago, NotSure said:

Would it ever be appropriate, according to RONR, for a chair to any of the following, and does it change anything that this person is also the "President" (of an HOA... no special powers listed in bylaws)?

I will answer each separately in regards to whether it is appropriate. The fact that this person is also the President of an HOA makes no difference with regard to any of these questions.

41 minutes ago, NotSure said:

If any of these are inappropriate, how bad of a breech would they be considered, if in a group where the rules were being used properly?

RONR does not really give a scale of "how bad" a particular breach of the rules are. None of the breaches here are continuing breaches in the sense that they could be used s grounds to invalidate the business conducted. They could be grounds for disciplinary action, but it is ultimately up to the organization to determine whether a given situation warrants discipline and, if so, the nature of the penalty to be imposed.

41 minutes ago, NotSure said:

1. After a nomination from the floor for an eligible person to become a Board member, during an annual meeting, to initiate a vote asking for the Board to vote on whether they wanted that particular person on the Board? There were two spots open, and no other floor nominations.

No, this is not appropriate. If the bylaws require a ballot vote, then a ballot vote should be taken. If the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, then the chair should declare the sole candidate elected. If a vote is to be taken during a meeting of the membership, however, the vote would be taken by the membership, not the board. The board can only vote during board meetings.

41 minutes ago, NotSure said:

2. To initiate a vote asking for the Board to vote the character of another Board member?

I'm not sure I fully understand the nature of the motion, but this does not sound proper.

42 minutes ago, NotSure said:

3. To publicly ask other Board members to comment during a meeting if a Board member is being sincere in something they have said about themselves? 

No.

43 minutes ago, NotSure said:

4. To state publicly that they themselves did not believe a Board member was being sincere about something they have said about themselves? 

No.

43 minutes ago, NotSure said:

5. To initiate a spontaneous vote during a public Board meeting, asking the other Board members if they wanted a specific Board member to resign? (This was after one Board member said "You should resign" during a public Board meeting to a specific Board member, and the President, instead of calling that member to order, then asked the others to vote on the spot if they felt the same way).

Yes. The board may, if it wishes, take a vote on a motion expressing an opinion that a board member should resign.

45 minutes ago, NotSure said:

6. To repeatedly admonish and criticize a Board member publicly during a meeting?

No.

Edited December 8, 2020 at 03:05 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

38 minutes ago, NotSure said:

1. After a nomination from the floor for an eligible person to become a Board member, during an annual meeting, to initiate a vote asking for the Board to vote on whether they wanted that particular person on the Board? There were two spots open, and no other floor nominations.

 

If nominations were closed, then the chair should declare the candidate elected. But this strikes me as an easy mistake to make. In any event, it is not a continuing breach, in my opinion.

38 minutes ago, NotSure said:

2. To initiate a vote asking for the Board to vote the character of another Board member?

 

I don't know what this means, but it does not seem like a good idea.

39 minutes ago, NotSure said:

3. To publicly ask other Board members to comment during a meeting if a Board member is being sincere in something they have said about themselves? 

 

That would be a breach of decorum subject to discipline during the meeting.

39 minutes ago, NotSure said:

4. To state publicly that they themselves did not believe a Board member was being sincere about something they have said about themselves? 

 

Also a breach of decorum subject to discipline. But it's also worth noting that the chair, usually, shouldn't be entering into debate in the first place.

 

40 minutes ago, NotSure said:

5. To initiate a spontaneous vote during a public Board meeting, asking the other Board members if they wanted a specific Board member to resign? (This was after one Board member said "You should resign" during a public Board meeting to a specific Board member, and the President, instead of calling that member to order, then asked the others to vote on the spot if they felt the same way).

 

I suppose the chair either made a motion or assumed one. And an assembly has the right to request that its members do things, including resign. The procedure was not quite correct, though. And obviously it's not a good idea.

41 minutes ago, NotSure said:

6. To repeatedly admonish and criticize a Board member publicly during a meeting?

 

Needs more context.

[Joshua Katz]

3 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

If it is an general membership meeting, there is no way that only the board members may vote.

 

Good point. I had assumed we were talking about a board meeting.

[NotSure]

 

6 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Good point. I had assumed we were talking about a board meeting.

Only the board was called upon to vote. They treated the annual meeting exactly like a board meeting. The other homeowner chiming in only did so when he was told he could by the person who had nominated themselves.

[Joshua Katz]

1 minute ago, NotSure said:

Only the board was called upon to vote. They treated the annual meeting exactly like a board meeting. The other homeowner chiming in only did so when he was told he could by the person who had nominated themselves.

There shouldn't have been a vote at all, unless a ballot is required. Nonetheless, it is, of course, extremely improper to treat the annual meeting exactly like a board meeting. It is a power grab, because it takes away the only real opportunity for the members to exercise their own authority. HOAs are heavily regulated; check into your statutes for remedies outside the parliamentary.

[NotSure]

27 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

If nominations were closed, then the chair should declare the candidate elected. But this strikes me as an easy mistake to make. In any event, it is not a continuing breach, in my opinion.

>>>Nominations were closed. What do you mean by a continuing breach?  It did prevent the person from becoming elected.

I don't know what this means, but it does not seem like a good idea.

>>>After the person nominated themselves, the chair said they wanted to make a motion to ask the Board whether they should allow them on the Board. 

That would be a breach of decorum subject to discipline during the meeting.

>>>The other members have been told repeatedly by the chair and a staff member that the rules of decorum do not matter, and that they will not be enforced, even though RONR is the officially adopted Parliamentary rules.

Also a breach of decorum subject to discipline. But it's also worth noting that the chair, usually, shouldn't be entering into debate in the first place.

>>> It is a small board, 7 seats, 5 current members

I suppose the chair either made a motion or assumed one. And an assembly has the right to request that its members do things, including resign. The procedure was not quite correct, though. And obviously it's not a good idea.

>>>My impression was that such a request was considered a disciplinary measure that would be after other measures were tried. Otherwise it seems like a personal remark to tell someone they should resign in a public manner, and then for the chair to raise their hand, look around the room and say "Who else thinks she should resign?"  This is after no disciplinary issues had been brought forth.

Needs more context.

>>> Chair argued with other Board members after interrupting my discussion on a motion, that I was not an expert, and so they should not take my words seriously. (I was not claiming to be, I was actually referencing information supplied in the packet that was supplied by an expert).

>>>Chair told me I was done speaking when I tried to tell them what material I was referencing. 

>>>Chair told me repeatedly I should be at a meeting in person as opposed to on the phone, even though another board member was also attending that way, and it was given as an option to everyone.

>>>Chair yelled at me repeatedly me she could not hear me, and blamed me for this, even though it was their speakerphone system that was inadequate, as this option was supposed to be able to handle the entire board an several homeowners if that's how people decided to attend.

>>>Chair criticized me during a public meeting for absences that were due to medical issues, and then mocked my answer when I provided it.

 

Edited December 8, 2020 at 03:29 PM by NotSure

[Joshua Katz]

1 minute ago, NotSure said:

>>>Nominations were closed. What do you mean by a continuing breach?  It did prevent the person from becoming elected.

 

A continuing breach allows for a point of order to be raised after the event takes place. Here, I need to revisit that opinion given that we're talking about a board vote during a membership meeting that impacted the outcome of an election.

2 minutes ago, NotSure said:

>>>After the person nominated themselves, the chair said they wanted to make a motion to ask the Board whether they should allow me on the Board. 

 

That is not how elections work, so it is improper.

3 minutes ago, NotSure said:

>>>The other members have been told repeatedly by the chair and a staff member that the rules of decorum do not matter, and that they will not be enforced, even though RONR is the officially adopted Parliamentary rules.

 

I don't see what the staff member, who work for the organization and, presumably, the board, has to do with it. What is the chair's method for preventing people from making motions called for in RONR as regards discipline? RONR does not give the chair unlimited power.

4 minutes ago, NotSure said:

>>> It is a small board, 7 seats, 5 current members

 

But, as your other comments suggest, this was a membership meeting, hence the chair still should not have been entering into debate. Nothing can be done about that, though, since he has the right to do so, but is not supposed to exercise it.

5 minutes ago, NotSure said:

>>>My impression was that such a request was considered a disciplinary measure that would be after other measures were tried. Otherwise it seems like a personal remark to tell someone they should resign in a public manner, and then for the chair to raise their hand, look around the room and say "Who else thinks she should resign?"  This is after no disciplinary issues had been brought forth.

 

I don't see how it's a disciplinary measure. It's a main motion to request that a board member do something. The initial remark was out of order. But consider: an assembly can, without following any disciplinary procedure, adopt a motion to censure a person. I see this as along those lines.

7 minutes ago, NotSure said:

>>> Chair argued with other Board members after interrupting my discussion on a motion, that I was not an expert, and so they should not take my words seriously. (I was not claiming to be, I was actually referencing information supplied in the packet that was supplied by an expert).

 

Improper for numerous reasons.

7 minutes ago, NotSure said:

>>>Chair told me I was done speaking when I tried to tell them what material I was referencing. 

 

Had your time expired?

7 minutes ago, NotSure said:

>>>Chair told me repeatedly I should be at a meeting in person as opposed to on the phone, even though another board member was also attending that way, and it was given as an option to everyone.

 

Do your bylaws permit this?

8 minutes ago, NotSure said:

>>>Chair yelled at me repeatedly me she could not hear me, and blamed me for this, even though it was their speakerphone system that was inadequate, as this option was supposed to be able to handle the entire board an several homeowners if that's how people decided to attend.

 

I don't know what to say to that. 

8 minutes ago, NotSure said:

34 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

>>>Chair criticized me during a public meeting for absences that were due to medical issues, and then mocked my answer when I provided it.

 

Well that sure seems improper.

It looks like you know the answer to most if not all of these, and this is more in the nature of a catalog of grievances. I'm not sure what answers we can give you beyond saying that most of your grievances are legitimate.

[NotSure]

38 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

NO to all,

If it is an general membership meeting, there is no way that only the board members may vote.

Also if there are more than a dozen members the president should act impartial. 

Others I guess will comment in more detail, but get the newest ( 12th) edition of RONR and study the parts on president /chairs and on discipline. Also find some members who agree with you (and get rid of this president) 

Good luck

Thank you.

 

[NotSure]

4 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

I don't see what the staff member, who work for the organization and, presumably, the board, has to do with i.

>>>The staff member (management person who attends every meeting) has told the Board repeatedly that RONR is not needed, outdated, too formal, not necessary, too much trouble, and that voting that way (in a way that resembles RONR) is "enough".

What is the chair's method for preventing people from making motions called for in RONR as regards discipline? RONR does not give the chair unlimited power.

>>>I am not clear on this question.

But, as your other comments suggest, this was a membership meeting, hence the chair still should not have been entering into debate. Nothing can be done about that, though, since he has the right to do so, but is not supposed to exercise it.

>>>I don't think anyone informs our membership that a membership meeting is for them, not a Board meeting with an alternate name.

I don't see how it's a disciplinary measure. It's a main motion to request that a board member do something. The initial remark was out of order. But consider: an assembly can, without following any disciplinary procedure, adopt a motion to censure a person. I see this as along those lines.

>>>There was never any motion. One person said it casually while returning to their seat after getting some water. The chair raised their hand, looked around and asked if anyone else thought I should resign. This was immediately following being openly mocked by the chair and two others after I said I had to leave early. They are aware I have several chronic pain issues that hinder long sessions of sitting. This was after being there for almost 3 hours.

 

Had your time expired?

>>>No... she said she didn't care and didn't want hear it.

Do your bylaws permit this?

>>>Yes, and this was offered more readily to all participants due to covid restrictions.

I don't know what to say to that. 

>>>It was very embarrassing, especially since another Board member was also attending this way, and at times when I would speak, the chair would say "I think she's trying to participate" and yell "Hello?" into the phone and then say "I can't hear you... you really should be here".  I don't have any known or ongoing issues with my phone. The other Board member was treated with kindness and patience.

Well that sure seems improper.

It looks like you know the answer to most if not all of these, and this is more in the nature of a catalog of grievances. I'm not sure what answers we can give you beyond saying that most of your grievances are legitimate.

>>>Yes, I was pretty sure, but it definitely helps to get confirmation on such things by those who are considered more knowledgable than myself. 

I appreciate all the feedback.

[Joshua Katz]

4 minutes ago, NotSure said:

>>>The staff member (management person who attends every meeting) has told the Board repeatedly that RONR is not needed, outdated, too formal, not necessary, too much trouble, and that voting that way (in a way that resembles RONR) is "enough".

 

Right, but the board and membership don't take instructions from him. He answers to them.

5 minutes ago, NotSure said:

>>>I am not clear on this question.

 

Check out the sections in RONR on discipline for offenses during meetings as well as general discipline procedures. Suppose you make the motions described in those sections at a meeting. How would the chair respond? Refuse to recognize the motion? 

 

6 minutes ago, NotSure said:

>>>I don't think anyone informs our membership that a membership meeting is for them, not a Board meeting with an alternate name.

 

Well, someone should. And there are symbolic things that can be done, too. For instance, the board should not be sitting at a "main table" of any sort. They should be dispersed amongst the legions, as it were.

7 minutes ago, NotSure said:

>>>There was never any motion. One person said it casually while returning to their seat after getting some water. The chair raised their hand, looked around and asked if anyone else thought I should resign. This was immediately following being openly mocked by the chair and two others after I said I had to leave early. They are aware I have several chronic pain issues that hinder long sessions of sitting. This was after being there for almost 3 hours.

 

Well, I think you know full well that this is not acceptable. But, as is being so well illustrated by so many circumstances, that something is unacceptable only matters if people refuse to accept it. 

8 minutes ago, NotSure said:

>>>No... she said she didn't care and didn't want hear it.

 

A chair is not a dictator. Raise a point of order and appeal. But, before you do that, line up someone to second your appeal, and people who will speak on your behalf.

8 minutes ago, NotSure said:

43 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

>>>Yes, I was pretty sure, but it definitely helps to get confirmation on such things by those who are considered more knowledgable than myself. 

 

Just as a note, the only people here with any type of "status" are the members of the authorship team. The rest of us, regardless of credentials, do not speak with any particular assurance that we know what we're talking about.

[Atul Kapur]

This appears very similar to the topics discussed in this thread

 

[NotSure]

21 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

This appears very similar to the topics discussed in this thread

 

Yes, That is true. I realized there were more specific things I wanted to address, as well as include some new details.