Former Board Member treated as current member

[BBZZ]

Is it proper for a former board member (former treasurer) of an HOA to be asked to speak on behalf of the current treasurer? The current treasurer was attending the online meeting but was traveling and driving at the time. Also, the former board member continued to be unmuted and weighed in on numerous board discussions while all other members attending were muted. 

[J. J.]

There was no violation on any consequence.  The rules could be suspended to permit a non member to speak (25, fn. 7). 

[Alicia Percell, PRP]

Unlike members, non-members have no rights to receive recognition to speak, and as J.J. noted, it takes a suspension of the rules to allow them to do so.  Depending on the group's history, a chair might have had reason to presume that no one objects, and lots of things can happen when no one objects.  If someone does object, someone should raise a point of order about it.

[BBZZ]

Thank you JJ and Alicia. There was only a casual comment by the president of the board that the former board member would speak as a stand in for the current treasurer to provide a report on the financial standing of the community. There was no suspension of rules. The  additional comments by this former member were later in the meeting on other topics not pertaining to financials where he was simply allowed to weigh in as if he were still a board member. There was no objection by any board member and there was no comment from any resident during the open comment period. I did not comment as I wanted to do some research regarding such rules.  It has not been the practice of this board to allow non board members to speak and we are all, in fact, muted and not on camera for the online meetings. Can a non board member raise a point of order? At this point it would be an after the fact objection but might have the effect of preventing this from happening again. 

[Richard Brown]

I am going to nitpick just a bit with the answers by my friends J.J. and Alicia Percell:  RONR actually does not require a suspension of the rules to permit a non-member to address the assembly.  That can be done by a majority vote or, as is usually the case, by unanimous consent. §9:29 says that such participation is often at the discretion of the presiding officer, subject to an appeal to the assembly.  However, it does require a suspension of the rules to permit a non-member to participate in debate.  That, too, is often done by unanimous consent.   I suspect the chair never gave it much thought or assumed there was no objection.  Since nobody raised a point of order, what was done is done and is water under the bridge.