Must emailed correspondence be read during board meetings?

[MichaelC]

When an emailed correspondence is received by the board members, does RONR require the email be read by the secretary at a board meeting as I am being told? If this is the case, what if the email was directed towards the behavior of a board member who was not acting in her official capacity? I am being told that every correspondence must be read according to Roberts Rules, but I don't see where this is written. Thank you in advance.

[George Mervosh]

On 4/5/2022 at 4:41 PM, MichaelC said:

When an emailed correspondence is received by the board members, does RONR require the email be read by the secretary at a board meeting as I am being told? If this is the case, what if the email was directed towards the behavior of a board member who was not acting in her official capacity? I am being told that every correspondence must be read according to Roberts Rules, but I don't see where this is written. Thank you in advance.

I don't see that requirement either.  Ask the person telling you this to show you where it is at. 

[MichaelC]

On 4/5/2022 at 4:48 PM, George Mervosh said:

I don't see that requirement either.  Ask the person telling you this to show you where it is at. 

I just asked and was told "Article 3, number 16". I don't believe that refers to what is being presented as an email received by the board. Am I wrong?

[George Mervosh]

On 4/5/2022 at 4:57 PM, MichaelC said:

I just asked and was told "Article 3, number 16". I don't believe that refers to what is being presented as an email received by the board. Am I wrong?

The book does not use articles and numbers, it uses sections and paragraph numbers.  Even in the fourth edition published in 1915 where it was used, that isn't it.  It seems to me that this person is not using any official edition of Robert's Rules.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/5/2022 at 4:57 PM, MichaelC said:

I just asked and was told "Article 3, number 16". I don't believe that refers to what is being presented as an email received by the board. Am I wrong?

Article III, §16 would appear to be a reference to the 1915 edition of ROR, which has changed a bit over the last 107 years.  But even so, that section is about the motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, not anything to do with reading correspondence.  

It sounds like whoever is making up rules is also making up citations to cover them.  

[Dan Honemann]

Article III, Section 16, of the first three editions of Robert's Rules of Order deals with the right of every member to have any paper that is laid before the assembly to be acted upon read at least once, and further states that permission to have any other paper read requires the permission of the assembly. This is now found in RONR, 12th ed., 33:21.

 

[Richard Brown]

@MichaelCyour friend is apparently using a very, very old and outdated edition of Roberts Rules of Order (not even Robert’s rules of order revised or Roberts rules of order newly revised) but is misconstruing what the section he is referring to says.

Edited to add: tell him he can get the new and current 12th edition of RONR from Amazon for about 15 bucks.

Edited April 6, 2022 at 01:39 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Guest MichaelC]

On 4/6/2022 at 8:45 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Article III, Section 16, of the first three editions of Robert's Rules of Order deals with the right of every member to have any paper that is laid before the assembly to be acted upon read at least once, and further states that permission to have any other paper read requires the permission of the assembly. This is now found in RONR, 12th ed., 33:21.

 

So would this then require a majority vote from the board to read a correspondence from a member, or would this require any letter/email be read during a meeting regardless?

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/6/2022 at 9:57 AM, Guest MichaelC said:

So would this then require a majority vote from the board to read a correspondence from a member, or would this require any letter/email be read during a meeting regardless?

If the letter/email is not the subject of a motion which is before the board for adoption (and I gather it is not), a majority vote will be required to obtain consent that it be read.

[Rob Elsman]

On 4/5/2022 at 3:41 PM, MichaelC said:

...the email was directed towards the behavior of a board member who was not acting in her official capacity...

This just sounds like gossip and detraction.  It is never allowed to unjustly attack a member at a meeting by any means, email or otherwise, and the secretary and the chairman of the board should be careful to protect the good name of all the members during meetings.  If the author of the email believes the matter is so serious that a disciplinary procedure should be initiated, he may carefully draft a resolution and present it at a meeting of the general membership assembly.

In my own opinion, detraction is so damaging to the stability and good order of a society that the detractor is, himself, subject to discipline.  Just saying.

[MichaelC]

Lots of great help here everyone and much appreciated. So then my question would be if any correspondence sent to the board and placed in front of us to be read by the secretary would it need a motion to be read only if it deals with a motion presented to the board?

[Rob Elsman]

Strictly speaking, the permission of the assembly is required to read papers.  In some peaceable, smaller bodies of members who are experienced in proper parliamentary procedure, the permission is either assumed or given rather informally; otherwise, to be on the safe side, a formal motion should be made.

[Wild Dunes]

Our HOA board does things not totally following RONR as I have discussed in earlier posts and that we are working on changing. One item that has historically been done is to have an agenda with supporting documents for each meeting.  One agenda item is 'Correspondence.' That correspondence comes from members of the HOA that complain, compliment, suggest, etc. Our history has been that, unless there is something sensitive or confidential in the correspondence, the correspondence is read in the open meeting under the agenda item.

Our current board president wants to not have any correspondence read. She will quickly say something like "There's a letter in the packet, not going to read," the she will, depending upon the contents of the letter, ask a designated person to provide a rebuttal to the letter. In a recent meeting, she said, "our attorney said not to read correspondence" and moved past the item.

I have asked to see the attorney's response and understand that for some reason we might have to follow that pronouncement. In the meantime, I would like to know what this forum might have to say on reading correspondence at the open board meeting.

Thank you.

[Gary Novosielski]

It's up to the board to decide (by motion), not the president.

[Joshua Katz]

Agreeing with Mr. Novosielski, it appears that reading the correspondence is a custom not, so far as we know at the moment, in conflict with any rule. So it should continue until the board decides otherwise or such a rule is pointed out.

[Rob Elsman]

The attorney might know something about a law or regulation that requires the reading of correspondence at meetings, but there is nothing to that effect in RONR (12th ed.).  This question seems more like an administrative matter than a matter of parliamentary law.

[Rob Elsman]

By the way, this topic is pretty old and stale. 😊