New Business Topic Introduction to the Board

[Guest Kathie Clark]

As a school board member, I wanted to introduce a topic to discuss at an upcoming school board meeting. I sent an email to all of the school board members identifying the topic and explaining my reasoning for the desire to introduce this topic. A few of the board members replied with comments- their position of the topic. The chairperson of the board sent an email stating this new topic would not be discussed at the school board meeting. Is it within the scope of the chairperson to make the decision (a) to not allow the topic to be motioned for discussion at our meeting and (b) for the topic to not be debated at the school board meeting? Thank you. Kathie Clark (kathiesclark@yahoo.com)

[Kathie Clark]

To bring a new idea before the group, Robert's Rule of Order states "After recognition by the president of the board, present your motion. A second is required for the motion to go to the floor for discussion or consideration." I do not see where the chairperson/president has the authority to direct no discussion on the topic at an upcoming meeting. Does the rule of order state something about the authority of the chairperson/president?

[Josh Martin]

32 minutes ago, Guest Kathie Clark said:

As a school board member, I wanted to introduce a topic to discuss at an upcoming school board meeting. I sent an email to all of the school board members identifying the topic and explaining my reasoning for the desire to introduce this topic. A few of the board members replied with comments- their position of the topic. The chairperson of the board sent an email stating this new topic would not be discussed at the school board meeting. Is it within the scope of the chairperson to make the decision (a) to not allow the topic to be motioned for discussion at our meeting and (b) for the topic to not be debated at the school board meeting? Thank you. Kathie Clark (kathiesclark@yahoo.com)

Did the chair state the reason why the chair is refusing to admit the motion? That may make a difference. The chair may rule a motion out of order if it violates some rule of the assembly. If the wording of a motion is unclear, the chair should work with the motion maker to clarify it. The chair may not, however, refuse to admit a motion simply due to the chair's opinion on the merits of the motion or the desirability of discussing it.

"In principle, the chair must state the question on a motion immediately after it has been made and seconded, unless he is obliged to rule that the motion is not in order or unless, in his opinion, the wording is not clear." RONR (12th ed.) 4:16

It should be noted, however, that a school board almost certainly has additional rules pertaining to the introduction of topics in its own rules and/or in applicable law. It would be prudent to consult the school board's legal counsel on such matters.

24 minutes ago, Kathie Clark said:

To bring a new idea before the group, Robert's Rule of Order states "After recognition by the president of the board, present your motion. A second is required for the motion to go to the floor for discussion or consideration."

Where exactly does this quotation come from? While the general substance of this citation appears to be a correct summary of the rules on this subject, this exact language does not appear in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order - or so far as I am aware, any official edition of Robert's Rules of Order.

Edited May 5, 2021 at 06:27 PM by Josh Martin

[Kathie Clark]

18 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Did the chair state the reason why the chair is refusing to admit the motion? That may make a difference. The chair may rule a motion out of order if it violates some rule of the assembly. If the wording of a motion is unclear, the chair should work with the motion maker to clarify it. The chair may not, however, refuse to admit a motion simply due to the chair's opinion on the merits of the motion or the desirability of discussing it.

"In principle, the chair must state the question on a motion immediately after it has been made and seconded, unless he is obliged to rule that the motion is not in order or unless, in his opinion, the wording is not clear." RONR (12th ed.) 4:16

It should be noted, however, that a school board almost certainly has additional rules pertaining to the introduction of topics in its own rules and/or in applicable law. It would be prudent to consult the school board's legal counsel on such matters.

Where exactly does this quotation come from? While the general substance of this citation appears to be a correct summary of the rules on this subject, this exact language does not appear in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order - or so far as I am aware, any official edition of Robert's Rules of Order.

Josh, below is the actual email sent out by the chairperson. I left it in it's entirety to help understand the last paragraph where he stated we would not discuss this at the meeting. There are no provisions in place for exit interviews neither in our board policy manual nor with the school leadership. My motion was to discuss exit interviews and what process we will adopt moving forward as we just had all but two teachers quit. My point of order is to ensure we as a board are understanding what exactly might have occurred from all levels of perspective. Our annual survey is expected to be given to parents and staff next week, but I find it not relevant to the discussion of exit interviews.

//begin//

There has been enough discussion about this "exit interview" process, the urgency of which seems to be to gain some sympathy for the teachers whose contracts weren't renewed and those who simply refused to renew them. The ONLY people who can speak for the teachers are the teachers themselves. Everything else is hearsey. One of the teachers called me a couple months back and wanted to discuss some issues but wanted to remain anonymous because she was afraid of reprisals. I told her that as an individual board member and IAW our policy manual, I could not accept those terms and advised her to follow the grievance procedure in the teachers manual which would eventually get to the board if it could not be resolved with the administrator. The manual specifically states that there would be no reprisals and I told her that if there was, I wanted to know about it. She made the decision not to follow the policy. That was THEIR decision. I know what the teachers have done for the school and I was chairman of the church during the worst turmoil in the school's history and I interviewed all the teachers myself during that time. The HHLS Policy Manual, The Parent Handbook and the Teachers' Manual are the governing documents of this school and this is what we use to deal with issues. 

 

I spoke with a couple of parents yesterday and the day before. One wanted to remain anonymous because she simply didn't want her name mentioned and the other wanted anonymity because she was afraid of reprisals against her child. I was aghast that anyone would think their child's education and welfare would be put in jeopardy simply because she made a complaint. To me that is the height of paranoia and I can't imagine where she got that idea in her head. Both of these parents got only one side of the story or maybe they heard it from someone else. All these teachers (to the best of my knowledge) signed NDA's and if they are spreading news to stir up parents and get back at the school, then they are in violation of those NDA's. Once again, there are procedures in place for parents to deal with grievances but if everybody remains anonymous, my hands are tied and if they leave the school because a particular teacher is not there then they are doing their children an injustice and not being fair to the school because it is just as likely the new teachers are just as good if not better than the old ones as it is that they will be worse.

 

Concerning the exit interviews, I trust Analeigh to do the job she was trained for. There will be no discussion of this at a board meeting until the surveys and exit interviews are done 

[Kathie Clark]

29 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Did the chair state the reason why the chair is refusing to admit the motion? That may make a difference. The chair may rule a motion out of order if it violates some rule of the assembly. If the wording of a motion is unclear, the chair should work with the motion maker to clarify it. The chair may not, however, refuse to admit a motion simply due to the chair's opinion on the merits of the motion or the desirability of discussing it.

"In principle, the chair must state the question on a motion immediately after it has been made and seconded, unless he is obliged to rule that the motion is not in order or unless, in his opinion, the wording is not clear." RONR (12th ed.) 4:16

It should be noted, however, that a school board almost certainly has additional rules pertaining to the introduction of topics in its own rules and/or in applicable law. It would be prudent to consult the school board's legal counsel on such matters.

Where exactly does this quotation come from? While the general substance of this citation appears to be a correct summary of the rules on this subject, this exact language does not appear in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order - or so far as I am aware, any official edition of Robert's Rules of Order.

I found a Quick Sheet of Robert's Rules on the website and quoted it from there. I have reserved a Robert's Rules from the library but am inclined to purchase one to have on hand. Is there an electronic version I might purchase to your knowledge?

[Rob Elsman]

8 minutes ago, Kathie Clark said:

Concerning the exit interviews, I trust Analeigh to do the job she was trained for. There will be no discussion of this at a board meeting until the surveys and exit interviews are done.

I trust Analeigh; I don't trust the chairperson. 😄

In a smaller school board, a motion does not even require a second.  So, at the next meeting, obtain recognition and just make your motion.  The chairperson is on the wrong side of this, unless some kind of Open Meeting law requires each topic to be posted in advance of the meeting.

[Richard Brown]

5 minutes ago, Kathie Clark said:

I found a Quick Sheet of Robert's Rules on the website and quoted it from there. I have reserved a Robert's Rules from the library but am inclined to purchase one to have on hand. Is there an electronic version I might purchase to your knowledge?

I think all of us here would encourage you to get your own copy of the 12th edition of RONR. It is available at most bookstores, from the National Association of Parliamentarians, and on Amazon. There’s also an electronic Kindle version available from Amazon. Be sure to get only the official 12th edition of Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised as described here: https://robertsrules.com

you might also consider a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order in Brief.

[Kathie Clark]

2 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I think all of us here would encourage you to get your own copy of the 12th edition of RONR. It is available at most bookstores, from the National Association of Parliamentarians, and on Amazon. There’s also an electronic Kindle version available from Amazon. Be sure to get only the official 12th edition of Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised as described here: https://robertsrules.com

you might also consider a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order in Brief.

Thank you, Richard. I will do that soonest. I am fairly new to the board and feel order is not achieved generally. I want to know my place and understand my ability to effect the needs of the organization I serve. Your response is much appreciated. Kat

[Rob Elsman]

Share your copy with the chairperson, who seems to need it more than you do...

[Kathie Clark]

1 minute ago, Rob Elsman said:

Share your copy with the chairperson, who seems to need it more than you do...

He is a good guy and has a long history with the church and school. He cares but his breadth of leadership knowledge, understanding and frankly dealing with strong personalities in school leadership puts him at a disadvantage. I will take your advice and get two copies. 😉

[Josh Martin]

44 minutes ago, Kathie Clark said:

Josh, below is the actual email sent out by the chairperson. I left it in it's entirety to help understand the last paragraph where he stated we would not discuss this at the meeting. There are no provisions in place for exit interviews neither in our board policy manual nor with the school leadership. My motion was to discuss exit interviews and what process we will adopt moving forward as we just had all but two teachers quit. My point of order is to ensure we as a board are understanding what exactly might have occurred from all levels of perspective. Our annual survey is expected to be given to parents and staff next week, but I find it not relevant to the discussion of exit interviews.

Thank you. Based upon the facts provided, I see no reason for the chair to legitimately refuse to state the question on a motion "to discuss exit interviews and what process we will adopt moving forward." It may or may not be desirable for the board to have a discussion on these matters at this time and I express no view on that point, but that is a decision for the board to make, not the chair acting alone. The chair's expressed reasoning appears to be based on the chair's personal view that the discussion should not occur until after the exit interviews and surveys are completed. Unless there is some rule of the board which requires this, the chair has no authority to enforce that view.