Open Board meetings

[Guest Cathy]

Hello - I am looking for clarity on Open Board Meetings. My understanding is that if a member asks to attend a Board meeting - this might occur because there is a topic to be discussed, let's say, as an example "planting new trees" - that the member can attend unless it is an executive session. 

Given the interest in attending in the topic, if the Board is going to vote on planting new trees at the meeting, does the member have to wait until the end of the meeting to comment on the trees. This seems odd if there is going to be a vote on the tree planting, if the member as input about the type of tree being planted, for instance. If you have to wait until the end to possibly comment, then how can you get the relevant information to the Board before the vote? If it is determined that there is an issue with the three type, but they have just voted it in, then is the Board allowed to do a revote? Why not let the member comment at the appropriate time?

We used to so this in the past but now the Board is saying that you have to wait until the end to be able to comment, but seems practical but also stupid and we are voting things that I don't think would get voted if people had the information at the right time. 

Thanks in advance for clarification on what is expected by the the term Open Board Meetings.

Catherine

[Josh Martin]

On 8/7/2022 at 9:45 AM, Guest Cathy said:

Hello - I am looking for clarity on Open Board Meetings. My understanding is that if a member asks to attend a Board meeting - this might occur because there is a topic to be discussed, let's say, as an example "planting new trees" - that the member can attend unless it is an executive session. 

So far as RONR is concerned, whether members of the society may attend board board meetings (whether or not the meeting is in executive session) is at the board's discretion. The organization might have its own rules on this subject, or for certain types of organizations there may be rules on this matter in applicable law. In such cases, those rules will take precedence over RONR.

On 8/7/2022 at 9:45 AM, Guest Cathy said:

Given the interest in attending in the topic, if the Board is going to vote on planting new trees at the meeting, does the member have to wait until the end of the meeting to comment on the trees.

So far as RONR is concerned, whether, when, and how members of the society may make comments during the board meeting is at the board's discretion. The organization might have its own rules on this subject, or for certain types of organizations there may be rules on this matter in applicable law. In such cases, those rules will take precedence over RONR.

On 8/7/2022 at 9:45 AM, Guest Cathy said:

If you have to wait until the end to possibly comment, then how can you get the relevant information to the Board before the vote?

It may be there are methods to contact board members other than by commenting during a meeting.

On 8/7/2022 at 9:45 AM, Guest Cathy said:

If it is determined that there is an issue with the three type, but they have just voted it in, then is the Board allowed to do a revote?

There is no such thing as simply doing a "revote," but generally speaking, a motion to Reconsider would be in order, since this would be within the time limits for making such a motion. Such a motion must be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side and requires a majority vote for adoption. If adopted, the motion is then before the assembly in the same condition as it was in immediately prior to its adoption, and is then subject to further debate and amendment, and ultimately another vote.

On 8/7/2022 at 9:45 AM, Guest Cathy said:

Why not let the member comment at the appropriate time?

That would be a question for the board members.

[Rob Elsman]

Since non-members of the board have no right to speak at meetings of the board, any privilege that is extended to do so is subject to the rules that the board has established to govern these kinds of comment periods.  A guest who wishes to make a comment must observe these rules and be careful to speak only when and for however long the board has determined to be allowed.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/7/2022 at 10:45 AM, Guest Cathy said:

Hello - I am looking for clarity on Open Board Meetings. My understanding is that if a member asks to attend a Board meeting - this might occur because there is a topic to be discussed, let's say, as an example "planting new trees" - that the member can attend unless it is an executive session. 

Given the interest in attending in the topic, if the Board is going to vote on planting new trees at the meeting, does the member have to wait until the end of the meeting to comment on the trees. This seems odd if there is going to be a vote on the tree planting, if the member as input about the type of tree being planted, for instance. If you have to wait until the end to possibly comment, then how can you get the relevant information to the Board before the vote? If it is determined that there is an issue with the three type, but they have just voted it in, then is the Board allowed to do a revote? Why not let the member comment at the appropriate time?

We used to so this in the past but now the Board is saying that you have to wait until the end to be able to comment, but seems practical but also stupid and we are voting things that I don't think would get voted if people had the information at the right time. 

Thanks in advance for clarification on what is expected by the the term Open Board Meetings.

Catherine

Well, Open Board Meeting is not a term used in RONR. The rules in RONR say that unless the board grants permission, nobody but members of the board can attend or speak at board meetings.

If this is a term used in your organization, there's a good chance it will refer to something in your bylaws.  In elected public bodies, states often have an Open Public Meetings Act, sometimes called a "Sunshine Law" that gives non-board-members a right to attend board meetings.  Sometimes they will also grant the ability to be heard.  I don't know of any that say it has to be done at the start of the meeting.

You don't say what type of organization you're dealing with.  Is it a homeowners association, a zoning board, a school board, or something similar?   Does it have a Board and also a Membership? or is it just a lone board and the public?

I agree with you that it makes little sense to hear from the people after the train has left the dock, but that's how some boards do it.  I think they're hoping the meeting will be boring enough that nobody will stick around for the end.

A board I served on had two public hearings--one at the beginning of the meeting for comments regarding items on the published agenda, and one at the end for general topics of interest.  But they were particularly proud of their transparency. It's not typical.

[Guest Cathy]

These comments and ideas are helpful. It is for a homeowners association.  I guess the practice was tradition and not RONR. I thought because committees let people participate then Boards were subject to the same idea.

I like the idea of allowing comments on the agenda items before the discussion. 

Thank you to all. 

[Joshua Katz]

On 8/7/2022 at 6:10 PM, Guest Cathy said:

I thought because committees let people participate then Boards were subject to the same idea.

As far as RONR is concerned, committees are subject to the same rules as have been discussed here.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/7/2022 at 6:10 PM, Guest Cathy said:

These comments and ideas are helpful. It is for a homeowners association.  I guess the practice was tradition and not RONR. I thought because committees let people participate then Boards were subject to the same idea.

I like the idea of allowing comments on the agenda items before the discussion. 

Thank you to all. 

There's a third and fourth possibility.

• Custom (tradition)
• RONR (already checked)
• Your bylaws
• State regulations regarding HOAs

Before concluding that it's all just local custom, explore the last two.

 

[Josh Martin]

On 8/7/2022 at 5:10 PM, Guest Cathy said:

These comments and ideas are helpful. It is for a homeowners association.  I guess the practice was tradition and not RONR. I thought because committees let people participate then Boards were subject to the same idea.

I would add that HOAs are, in fact, one of the types of organizations which tend to have state laws and regulations on this subject. I don't know that such rules would necessarily extend to the level of detail you are looking for, but it might be wise to double-check what your state's laws say on this matter.

[Termination Requested Pls]

On 8/7/2022 at 9:45 AM, Guest Cathy said:

Hello - I am looking for clarity on Open Board Meetings. My understanding is that if a member asks to attend a Board meeting - this might occur because there is a topic to be discussed, let's say, as an example "planting new trees" - that the member can attend unless it is an executive session. 

Given the interest in attending in the topic, if the Board is going to vote on planting new trees at the meeting, does the member have to wait until the end of the meeting to comment on the trees. This seems odd if there is going to be a vote on the tree planting, if the member as input about the type of tree being planted, for instance. If you have to wait until the end to possibly comment, then how can you get the relevant information to the Board before the vote? If it is determined that there is an issue with the three type, but they have just voted it in, then is the Board allowed to do a revote? Why not let the member comment at the appropriate time?

We used to so this in the past but now the Board is saying that you have to wait until the end to be able to comment, but seems practical but also stupid and we are voting things that I don't think would get voted if people had the information at the right time. 

As some here have indicated, every state has either a HOA statute, a condo statute, or a nonprofit corporation statute, or a combination of the above. These statutes nearly always state whether HOA/COA board meetings must be open to the membership. Furthermore many of these statutes indicate what topics a Board may discuss in closed session.

For example and pursuant to state statutes: In Ohio and Pennsylvania, HOA/COA Boards have the lawful right to close all their meetings to members. In Florida, Virginia, Arizona, Washington, California and Texas, board meetings must be properly "noticed" and open to the membership, with the exception of board discussions where certain, well-delineated topics will be discussed.

As to whether owners may participate in meetings, many states have statute sections that do speak specifically to this. For example, California and Arizona requires that owners be given a certain period during which they may speak. If the HOA/COA is also subject to Robert's Rules (per the Bylaws or statute), and a conflict arises between the statute sections and Robert's Rules, the statute section controls. As of this writing, I think most states do not have statutes requiring that owners be allowed to comment. In which case and per Robert's Rules or, in my experience, just to keep the peace, the President ought to consider reasonable interjections here and there or an "owner comment period" at the start or finish. On the other hand, I believe Arizona statute requires boards to allow owners to speak on each topic on the agenda, and at the time the topic is being discussed.

I do not know if naming the state where a poster here is located is permitted. If so, and if if the OP posts the name of the state where the HOA is located, I can speak at length on what the state's statutes say about owner participation (if anything), with citations to the specific statute sections.

[Josh Martin]

On 8/18/2022 at 3:39 PM, Augustin said:

I do not know if naming the state where a poster here is located is permitted. If so, and if if the OP posts the name of the state where the HOA is located, I can speak at length on what the state's statutes say about owner participation (if anything), with citations to the specific statute sections.

We would encourage that you continue any such discussion outside of this forum. The purpose of this forum is to discuss the rules of Robert's Rules of Order. While it is entirely appropriate to note that applicable law will take precedence (especially in matters where such laws are common), it is not appropriate to discuss what a particular law entails.

[Termination Requested Pls]

Mr. Martin, respectfully, who is "we"? If you are a moderator, this has special meaning. 

Else I will be keeping this from Schmuel Gerber's welcome page in mind:

The Question and Answer Forums are provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised.

As my interest allows, I will encourage people to either PM or email me when the discussion should, of necessity IMO, go beyond Robert's Rules to other parliamentary realities as given in state law and often, the bylaws. That is, assuming the rules of this forum allow the posting of email addresses.

Edited August 18, 2022 at 09:34 PM by Augustin

[Atul Kapur]

On 8/18/2022 at 4:39 PM, Augustin said:

As of this writing, I think most states do not have statutes requiring that owners be allowed to comment. In which case and per Robert's Rules or, in my experience, just to keep the peace, the President ought to consider reasonable interjections here and there or an "owner comment period" at the start or finish.

You say "per Robert's Rules" but, as RONR is clear that non-members have no rights to attend or participate in a meeting (eg, 61:7, 61:19), where do you find this suggestion in RONR?

On 8/18/2022 at 4:39 PM, Augustin said:

I can speak at length on what the state's statutes say

How do you see that the statement above is consistent with the limitation in the statement you quoted?

On 8/18/2022 at 5:25 PM, Augustin said:

relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised

Edited August 18, 2022 at 09:48 PM by Atul Kapur

[Termination Requested Pls]

On 8/18/2022 at 4:41 PM, Atul Kapur said:

You say "per Robert's Rules" but, as RONR is clear that non-members have no rights to attend or participate in a meeting (eg, 61:7, 61:19), where do you find this suggestion in RONR?

How do you see that the statement above is consistent with the limitation in the statement you quoted?

I did not say that non-members of the board have a right to attend or participate under RONR. They have no such "right." However I recall that RONR allows the deliberative assembly, by motion, to suspend the rules for a specific purpose. At this point and per agreement of the deliberative assembly (as delineated in RONR), my understanding is that input from non-members might be taken. The topic has come up here a lot, as I recall. If you desire an exact citation, I will provide it in a day or so. For now and from this site's archives, I believe RONR 25:2 covers such a suspension of rules at least in part.

Your concern that I ventured off-topic, is noted. I invite the OP to PM me.

Edited August 18, 2022 at 10:23 PM by Augustin

[Atul Kapur]

No thank you, I do not need citations. I read your post as saying that RONR suggested that the president "ought to consider reasonable interjections . . . or an 'owner comment period'".

It appears that this is your suggestion and that you are saying that the president should follow proper process in RONR if they are going to do this.

[Termination Requested Pls]

On 8/18/2022 at 5:20 PM, Atul Kapur said:

It appears that this is your suggestion and that you are saying that the president should follow proper process in RONR if they are going to do this.

If the organization's Bylaws or state law subject the organization's meetings to RONR, then yes, this is my position.

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/18/2022 at 5:01 PM, Josh Martin said:

We would encourage that you continue any such discussion outside of this forum. The purpose of this forum is to discuss the rules of Robert's Rules of Order. While it is entirely appropriate to note that applicable law will take precedence (especially in matters where such laws are common), it is not appropriate to discuss what a particular law entails.

 

On 8/18/2022 at 5:25 PM, Augustin said:

Mr. Martin, respectfully, who is "we"? If you are a moderator, this has special meaning. 

As one of the moderators of this forum, I can assure you that "we" agree entirely with what Mr. Martin has said here.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/18/2022 at 6:12 PM, Augustin said:

I did not say that non-members of the board have a right to attend or participate under RONR. They have no such "right." However I recall that RONR allows the deliberative assembly, by motion, to suspend the rules for a specific purpose. At this point and per agreement of the deliberative assembly (as delineated in RONR), my understanding is that input from non-members might be taken. The topic has come up here a lot, as I recall. If you desire an exact citation, I will provide it in a day or so. For now and from this site's archives, I believe RONR 25:2 covers such a suspension of rules at least in part.

Your concern that I ventured off-topic, is noted. I invite the OP to PM me.

Actually this has come up a number of times here.  Merely letting non-members address the board does not require a suspension of any rule, since RONR gives the board control of who may attend meetings or address the board.  A majority vote would do.

However suspension of the rules, and therefore a two-thirds vote, would be required to allow a non-member to speak in debate, because the rules in RONR allow only members to participate in debate. 

And the rules cannot be suspended to allow a non-member to vote.

[Richard Brown]

I concur with the post immediately above by Mr. Novosielski and will emphasize the point that he and others have made that non-members of the board have no rights whatsoever at board meetings except as may be provided for in the organization’s  bylaws or controlling state law or as may be permitted by the board in its discretion or by custom.

It is the board, not the president or chairman, which has the power to grant such permissions,  although as a practical matter boards will frequently defer to the chair on requests such as this.  That actually amounts to the board granting the permission by unanimous consent because any one board member could object or raise a point of order and require that a vote of the board be taken on any such request. If you listen closely to what is said when such requests are made, you will frequently hear the chair say something to the effect of “if there’s no objection, you may address the board for three minutes”. 

[Termination Requested Pls]

On 8/19/2022 at 3:07 AM, Richard Brown said:

I concur with the post immediately above by Mr. Novosielski and will emphasize the point that he and others have made that non-members of the board have no rights whatsoever at board meetings except as may be provided for in the organization’s  bylaws or controlling state law or as may be permitted by the board in its discretion or by custom.

It is the board, not the president or chairman, which has the power to grant such permissions,  although as a practical matter boards will frequently defer to the chair on requests such as this.  

 

Since the OP is speaking about a HOA, I hasten to point out that HOA bylaws often do give the President the sole authority to recognize a non-director who wishes to make a statement (not a motion, of course).

I realize you qualified your comments to some extent in the first paragraph. I want to be clear that this qualification also applies to your second paragraph (as I quoted it above).

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/19/2022 at 11:43 AM, Augustin said:

Since the OP is speaking about a HOA, I hasten to point out that HOA bylaws often do give the President the sole authority to recognize a non-director who wishes to make a statement (not a motion, of course).

Yes, I think it goes without saying, if the bylaws say otherwise.

 

[Rob Elsman]

The official Robert's Rules of Order website has this caution at the head of the FAQs section:

Caution: The answers given here to the questions presented are based upon the rules contained in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. These rules are, in effect, default rules; that is to say, they govern only if there are no contrary provisions in any federal, state, or other law applicable to the society, or in the society’s bylaws, or in any special rules of order that the society has adopted. This fact must always be kept in mind when reading any of the answers given.

This same caution applies to this forum without having to be repeated on each thread.