Gag Order Rule

[Tomm]

There's a rumor by a former member of the Board that once you get elected to the Board you're instructed that you are prohibited from communication with the public in any fashion (except at Board meetings) and specifically through local website blogs. (Note: I have found this to be somewhat true with regards to emailing the Board. They don't respond with even a "Thank You for contacting us")

 Now, if that is true I suspect that it needs to be recorded somewhere as a Standing Rule? I suspect it can't be a Special Rule of Order because it's not in the context of a meeting? 

Problem is, the corporation does not comply with RONR even though it's their parliamentary authority and does not document any Special Rules of Oder or Standing Rules. 

Question: How does one go about verifying that such a rule (possibly a secret rule) exists? I would think it had to be presented as a motion at some previous meeting and voted on and should be found somewhere in the Minutes? Is a rule like that even legal according to RONR? Does it violate standard practices of parliamentary rule?

Please advise!

[Richard Brown]

On 8/24/2022 at 1:26 PM, Tomm said:

Question: How does one go about verifying that such a rule (possibly a secret rule) exists? I would think it had to be presented as a motion at some previous meeting and voted on and should be found somewhere in the Minutes?

Well, you can ask to review the minutes of the organization pursuant to section 47:33 (4), but unless you are a member of the board, you have no right to see the board minutes.  You do you have the right to review   the minutes of the general membership meetings. Perhaps a friendly board member will be willing to give you more information.

On 8/24/2022 at 1:26 PM, Tomm said:

Is a rule like that even legal according to RONR?

We don’t do “legal“ here, but in my opinion the organization and perhaps the board has the right to institute a rule regarding what information about the organization may be disclosed to the public and who may disclose such information.

On 8/24/2022 at 1:26 PM, Tomm said:

Does it violate standard practices of parliamentary rule?

I’m not aware of any rule of parliamentary procedure that such a rule would violate.  Such a practice is rather common among many  lodge type organizations as explained in section 9:24 of RONR.

[Tomm]

On 8/24/2022 at 12:51 PM, Richard Brown said:

Such a practice is rather common among many  lodge type organizations as explained in section 9:24 of RONR.

Board meetings are open to the general membership so unless that rule was established within an executive session I would assume it had to be recorded somewhere!

Thanks

[Josh Martin]

On 8/24/2022 at 11:26 AM, Tomm said:

Now, if that is true I suspect that it needs to be recorded somewhere as a Standing Rule?

Yes, I think this seems correct.

It seems very possible (even likely) that, in the alternative, there is no formal rule on this subject, but is instead an unwritten custom and those who violate it are frowned upon.

On 8/24/2022 at 11:26 AM, Tomm said:

I suspect it can't be a Special Rule of Order because it's not in the context of a meeting? 

I am in agreement that the rule in question is not in the nature of a special rule of order.

On 8/24/2022 at 11:26 AM, Tomm said:

Problem is, the corporation does not comply with RONR even though it's their parliamentary authority and does not document any Special Rules of Oder or Standing Rules. 

Do they perhaps call these rules by another name? Quite frequently, organizations will call their lower-level rules by alternative names, often something like "Policies and Procedures."

On 8/24/2022 at 11:26 AM, Tomm said:

How does one go about verifying that such a rule (possibly a secret rule) exists? I would think it had to be presented as a motion at some previous meeting and voted on and should be found somewhere in the Minutes?

Sounds right to me.

On 8/24/2022 at 11:26 AM, Tomm said:

Is a rule like that even legal according to RONR?

Nothing in RONR would prohibit adopting a rule of this nature. An assembly can adopt any rules it wants so long as the assembly follows the appropriate procedure to do so, and so long as the rules do not conflict with an even higher authority, such as the rules of a parent body or applicable law.

"Within this framework under the general parliamentary law, an assembly or society is free to adopt any rules it may wish (even rules deviating from parliamentary law) provided that, in the procedure of adopting them, it conforms to parliamentary law or its own existing rules. The only limitations upon the rules that such a body can thus adopt might arise from the rules of a parent body (as those of a national society restricting its state or local branches), or from national, state, or local law affecting the particular type of organization." RONR (12th ed.) 2:2

On 8/24/2022 at 11:26 AM, Tomm said:

Does it violate standard practices of parliamentary rule?

No. The rule in question does not involve parliamentary procedure at all, and therefore does not violate "standard practices of parliamentary rule." Further, even if it did, that would not prevent the adoption of the rule.

On 8/24/2022 at 12:56 PM, Tomm said:

Board meetings are open to the general membership so unless that rule was established within an executive session I would assume it had to be recorded somewhere!

I don't think the fact that "Board meetings are open to the membership" (excepting those in executive session) necessarily means that the minutes are also open to the membership (except minutes of meetings held in executive session), but I think it is correct that this is frequently the case, and it is possible that is the case in your organization.

Edited August 24, 2022 at 08:51 PM by Josh Martin

[Tomm]

On 8/24/2022 at 1:50 PM, Josh Martin said:

It seems very possible (even likely) that, in the alternative, there is no formal rule on this subject, but is instead an unwritten custom and those who violate it are frowned upon.

If it's simply an unwritten rule/custom and not documented as an official Standing Rule, then is it safe to assume that no formal disciplinary action can be brought against the violator?

 

[Richard Brown]

On 8/24/2022 at 4:11 PM, Tomm said:

If it's simply an unwritten rule/custom and not documented as an official Standing Rule, then is it safe to assume that no formal disciplinary action can be brought against the violator?

I know you directed that question to Mr. Martin, but I’m going to take a shot at it. Even if the behavior does not violate an actual written rule, if the membership believes that it is conduct unbecoming a member of the society or that it somehow harms the society or its reputation, then under the rules in RONR the society could undertake disciplinary action.

You might take a look at section 61, particularly 61:1–61:5 and also 61:22 of RONR (12th Ed.) 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/24/2022 at 2:26 PM, Tomm said:

There's a rumor by a former member of the Board that once you get elected to the Board you're instructed that you are prohibited from communication with the public in any fashion (except at Board meetings) and specifically through local website blogs. (Note: I have found this to be somewhat true with regards to emailing the Board. They don't respond with even a "Thank You for contacting us")

 Now, if that is true I suspect that it needs to be recorded somewhere as a Standing Rule? I suspect it can't be a Special Rule of Order because it's not in the context of a meeting? 

Problem is, the corporation does not comply with RONR even though it's their parliamentary authority and does not document any Special Rules of Oder or Standing Rules. 

Question: How does one go about verifying that such a rule (possibly a secret rule) exists? I would think it had to be presented as a motion at some previous meeting and voted on and should be found somewhere in the Minutes? Is a rule like that even legal according to RONR? Does it violate standard practices of parliamentary rule?

Please advise!

Rumors being what they are, it's hard to nail this down with any precision.  It seems to me that any "rules" regarding board membership requirements should be made public before people decide to run for those seats.  It would be distressing to learn, for example, that there was a "secret rule" that all newly elected board members must pay a thousand bucks to each other member

But I have been a member of a board where it was emphasized to newly elected members that they did not have the right to speak to the public or to the press on behalf of the board.  It makes sense that there should be a single source for official information on board policy, and board members should not be spreading contradictory or confusing information.  Even so, it was not, nor could it be, a gag order.  Talking to a reporter about your own opinion on an issue could not be infringed, as long as you made it clear that you were not speaking on behalf of the board.  

But this was far from a secret rule.  Candidates running for officer were given a briefing that included that information, and as far as I know there was no legal jeopardy that attached to a violation.  I suppose internal discipline would have been possible, but it was never a problem.

But it's easy to see how such advice might easily be misinterpreted or miscommunicated through the rumor mill to turn it into something akin to the First Rule of Fight Club.

It may be nothing more than an overblown description of something that could be called common sense.

 

Edited August 25, 2022 at 12:12 AM by Gary Novosielski