Local School Board Member Trying to Make His Own Rules (by either adding to RR or replacing)

[Jupiter05]

I am currently a new member of a local school board in Ohio. The board's bylaws state: 

0161 - PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY

The parliamentary authority governing the Board of Education shall be the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, in all cases in which it is not inconsistent with statute, administrative code, or these bylaws.

 

AND:

 

 

0131 - LEGISLATIVE

The Board of Education shall make such rules and regulations as are necessary for its governance and the governance of its employees and students of its grounds or premises by adopting bylaws and policies for the organization and operation of this Board and this School District and shall be bound to follow such bylaws and policies. R.C. 3313.20

Those bylaws and policies which are not dictated by the statutes or rules of the State Board of Education or ordered by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, or a court of competent authority may be adopted, amended, and repealed at any meeting of the Board, provided the proposed adoption, amendment, or repeal shall have been proposed at a previous Board meeting and, once proposed, shall have remained on the agenda of each succeeding Board meeting until approved or rejected except that the Board may upon a vote equivalent to that for adoption, amendment, or repeal and where compelling reasons exist, cause to suspend at any time the operation of a bylaw or policy herein contained, provided the suspension does not conflict with law, and such suspension shall terminate at the next meeting of the Board or at such earlier time as is specified in the motion to suspend.

These bylaws and policies may be adopted or amended at a single meeting of the Board in an emergency. An emergency shall be defined for purposes of this rule as any situation or set of circumstances which the Board has reason to believe will close the schools or jeopardize the safety or welfare of the students or employees of the District.

Bylaws shall be adopted, amended, repealed, or suspended by an affirmative vote of four (4) members. Policies shall be adopted, amended, or repealed by an affirmative vote of three (3) members.

The adoption, modification, repeal, or suspension of a Board bylaw or policy shall be recorded in the minutes of the Board. All bylaws and policies shall be printed in the Board policy manual. Any policy or part of a policy that is superseded by a term in a negotiated agreement shall no longer be in force and effect as a policy.

The Board may adopt, amend, or repeal rules of order for its own operation by simple resolution of the Board passed by a majority of those present and voting.

 

The board member has proposed a new set of rules based on what he says has always been done by the board in practice. He and another board member are attempting to pass the new rules in addition to RR without any review by a Parliamentarian or attorney. Here are the rules they are proposing:

 

1. All meetings must start with roll call vote to establish a quorum for any business to be conducted.

2. Prior meeting minutes shall be approved as is or amended and approved prior to moving on with the current meeting agenda.

3. All board meetings are to be chaired by the board President. In the absence of the board President, the Vice President will assume the chair. If the event that a quorum is present and neither the President nor Vice President are in attendance, the chair shall be assumed by the board member with the most years of board service.

4. All members have equal rights, privileges, and obligations.

5. Off-topic remarks or side discussions during debate are out of order.

6. Only one question at a time may be considered with full discussion of every motion being the objective.

7. A formal proposal made to bring a subject before the board for its consideration and action, begins with "I move that..." or in the case of a recommendation by the Superintendent or Treasurer on the agenda, "I move".

8. All motions require a second before any consideration or discussion is allowed on said motion. Without a second, a motion will not be open for debate or consideration.

9. Motions may be amended before a vote is taken and may be amended by:

• Striking out words.
• Inserting or adding words.
• Striking out words and inserting others in their place.
• Substituting one (1) paragraph or resolution for another.

10. Members have a right to know what the pending question is and to have it restated before a vote is taken.

11. All votes on motions before the board will be done via voice roll call. A majority vote decides all questions and motions.

Role of the Presiding officer

• To introduce business in proper order per the agenda.
• To recognize speakers.
• To determine if a motion is in order.
• To keep discussion focused on the pending motion.
• To maintain order.
• To put motions to a vote and announce results.

General procedure for Handling a Main Motion

• Member makes a main motion.
• A motion must be seconded by another member before it can be considered.
• If the motion is in order, the chair will restate the motion and open debate.
• Debate is closed when: Discussion has ended, or a majority vote closes debate.
• The chair can restate the motion, and if necessary, clarifies the consequences of yes and no votes.
• The chair calls for a vote by asking "Roll call vote, please."

General Rules of Debate

• All discussion must be relevant to the immediately pending question or motion.
• No member should speak more than once for each debatable motion.
• Speaking time for each member is limited to 3 minutes per motion.
• No cross debate is permitted.
• Debate can be ended by a majority vote of the board.

 

In the second board meeting, I made motions according to RR for small boards, without using a second, in order to make sure the board was following the state law for adopting the school calendar, designating public records training etc.  I believe that is now why they suddenly want to change the rules, so I cannot put a motion on the floor without a second. However, in Ohio open meeting laws, board members cannot discuss board business outside of the open meeting, so it can be very difficult to get a second on the spot, making it even more difficult to make sure we are following the law. Being able to motion without a second in order to open debate/discussion is very helpful since there are only 5 of us. If they pass a rule requiring a second, I can try to deal with that. But how else are the rules they have proposed possibly putting our board and school district in jeopardy of a lawsuit, breaking the law, or worse? I feel like this is dangerous. 

The Superintendent and Treasurer are not elected officials, so I don't see how they can make motions. If it's the President's opinion as to whether a "motion is in order" can he just decide it's not and then a member can't propose it? There is no appeal of his decision?

What can I do to protect my voice and the students in my district? 

 

[Atul Kapur]

It sounds liken ou and the board would do well to have a parliamentarian give a course on Robert's Rules of Order (RONR). 

Many of the proposed rules reproduce (to various degrees of accuracy) what is already in RONR, so it can only cause confusion to adopt them separately (as it will be a problem where they differ inadvertently). On the other hand, because these rules are so similar to RONR, I am not sure why you see them as dangerous. Again, it makes me believe that there is a lack of knowledge of what RONR already provides.

On 4/8/2024 at 10:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

If it's the President's opinion as to whether a "motion is in order" can he just decide it's not and then a member can't propose it?

The president cannot rule a motion out of order on a whim, but should give a reason.

On 4/8/2024 at 10:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

There is no appeal of his decision?

Sure there is. Read about the motion Appeal from the decision of the chair.

Edited April 8, 2024 at 03:16 PM by Atul Kapur

[Jupiter05]

On 4/8/2024 at 11:16 AM, Atul Kapur said:

It sounds liken ou and the board would do well to have a parliamentarian give a course on Robert's Rules of Order (RONR). 

Many of the proposed rules reproduce (to various degrees of accuracy) what is already in RONR, so it can only cause confusion to adopt them separately (as it will be a problem where they differ inadvertently). On the other hand, because these rules are so similar to RONR, I am not sure why you see them as dangerous. Again, it makes me believe that there is a lack of knowledge of what RONR already provides.

The president cannot rule a motion out of order on a whim, but should give a reason.

Sure there is. Read about the motion Appeal from the decision of the chair.

I understand that there is an appeal motion in RONR. But if these new rules are added, can that motion still be used? Or do these special rules prevent it from being used?

[Rob Elsman]

So, if the bylaws prescribe the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised as the parliamentary authority, does that mean every member of the board has been provided a copy of the book by the school district, right along with a copy of the bylaws and special rules of order? If not, why not? If so, why are the members struggling so? Are the members literate adults? Set a good example for the students you teach, and read your books the same way you expect the students to read theirs.

[Jupiter05]

On 4/8/2024 at 11:51 AM, Rob Elsman said:

So, if the bylaws prescribe the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised as the parliamentary authority, does that mean every member of the board has been provided a copy of the book by the school district, right along with a copy of the bylaws and special rules of order? If not, why not? If so, why are the members struggling so? Are the members literate adults? Set a good example for the students you teach, and read your books the same way you expect the students to read theirs.

I agree! However, in a small rural area like ours, most people have never heard of RONR or most of the laws in this state, apparently. When I realized what was happening, I immediately started watching as many training videos and reading as much as I could to use RONR to make sure we are following the state law. In essence, I feel these two members are attempting to keep me from forcing discussions or votes on topics they don't want brought up. When I started, our elementary students were using black-and-white photocopies of reading books originally printed in 1999. So, no, they don't care much for reading it seems. I did get new reading books passed last meeting (the third meeting), thank goodness.    

[Atul Kapur]

On 4/8/2024 at 11:50 AM, Jupiter05 said:

I understand that there is an appeal motion in RONR. But if these new rules are added, can that motion still be used? Or do these special rules prevent it from being used?

I don't read anything in what you shared that suggests appeals are prohibited.

I repeat my suggestion that your board engage in training by a professional parliamentarian. It doesn't have to be a long session to be worthwhile. It could start with a summary of where the proposed rules repeat, unnecessarily, what is already in RONR; I suspect that there is a lot of misunderstanding of what RONR says and doesn't say.

[Josh Martin]

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

The board member has proposed a new set of rules based on what he says has always been done by the board in practice. He and another board member are attempting to pass the new rules in addition to RR without any review by a Parliamentarian or attorney. Here are the rules they are proposing:

I do not see anything as a parliamentary matter which prevents the board from adopting any of the proposed rules (although many of them appear unnecessary, as many of these rules are already provided for in RONR). The board is free to adopt its own rules which supersede RONR, so long as the rules do not conflict with applicable law. Additionally, a small board is free to choose to use the small board rules in whole, in part, or not at all.

More detailed comments on the rules follow.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

1. All meetings must start with roll call vote to establish a quorum for any business to be conducted.

The board is free to adopt this rule, and I find nothing objectionable about it. RONR does require that the chair ascertain the presence of a quorum before any business is conducted. RONR does not strictly require a roll call, but this is certainly one method of ascertaining the presence of a quorum, and I find it to be a common one in public bodies. The one quibble I have is that I would strike the word "vote" from this rule for clarity, since a roll call at the start of a meeting, to determine who is present, is not a vote.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

2. Prior meeting minutes shall be approved as is or amended and approved prior to moving on with the current meeting agenda.

This rule appears unnecessary, as RONR already provides for this.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

3. All board meetings are to be chaired by the board President. In the absence of the board President, the Vice President will assume the chair. If the event that a quorum is present and neither the President nor Vice President are in attendance, the chair shall be assumed by the board member with the most years of board service.

The first two sentences of this rule are unnecessary, as RONR already provides for this.

The board is free to adopt the last sentence of this rule if it wishes. Under RONR, the board would elect a Chair Pro Tempore rather than the position being automatically being assumed by the member with the most seniority.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

4. All members have equal rights, privileges, and obligations.

I am not fully clear on what this vague statement is intended to mean, but I am generally inclined to think that this rule is unnecessary and that RONR already provides for this.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

5. Off-topic remarks or side discussions during debate are out of order.

This rule is unnecessary, as RONR already provides for this.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

6. Only one question at a time may be considered with full discussion of every motion being the objective.

This rule is unnecessary, as RONR already provides for this.

(I might slightly quibble with the statement "full discussion of every motion being the objective", but as this appears to be more of an aspirational statement than a rule, I do not find it particularly objectionable.)

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

7. A formal proposal made to bring a subject before the board for its consideration and action, begins with "I move that..." or in the case of a recommendation by the Superintendent or Treasurer on the agenda, "I move".

This rule is unnecessary, as RONR already provides for this.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

8. All motions require a second before any consideration or discussion is allowed on said motion. Without a second, a motion will not be open for debate or consideration.

The board is free to adopt this rule if it wishes, which means the board will, in this regard, be following the rules for larger assemblies.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

9. Motions may be amended before a vote is taken and may be amended by:

• Striking out words.
• Inserting or adding words.
• Striking out words and inserting others in their place.
• Substituting one (1) paragraph or resolution for another.

The board is free to adopt this rule if it wishes, but I would not advise it, as it appears to prevent two of the methods of amendment permitted under RONR - adding a paragraph and striking out a paragraph. I doubt this was intentional.

The forms of amendment which are permissible are already covered in RONR (12th ed.) 12:8.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

10. Members have a right to know what the pending question is and to have it restated before a vote is taken.

This rule is unnecessary, as RONR already provides for this.

(I suppose strictly speaking, members do not have a right to have the question restated before the vote is taken. Members have a right for the question to be stated at least once before the vote is taken. But requests for a motion to be restated are routinely granted as a matter of courtesy.)

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

11. All votes on motions before the board will be done via voice roll call. A majority vote decides all questions and motions.

With respect to the first sentence of this rule, the board is free to adopt this rule if it wishes, and I generally do not find it objectionable, although I would strike the word "voice" for clarity. The board may wish to water this down slightly from all votes on motions in the interests of time, but that's up to the board.

With respect to the second sentence, the board may adopt this rule if it wishes, but I would not advise it. To the extent this is intended simply as a "default," RONR already provides for this. But as written, it would appear to suggest a majority is sufficient to decide all motions, even those motions which would otherwise require a 2/3 vote for adoption.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

Role of the Presiding officer

• To introduce business in proper order per the agenda.
• To recognize speakers.
• To determine if a motion is in order.
• To keep discussion focused on the pending motion.
• To maintain order.
• To put motions to a vote and announce results.

This is all unnecessary, as RONR already provides for this. See RONR (12th ed.) 47:7.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

General procedure for Handling a Main Motion

• Member makes a main motion.
• A motion must be seconded by another member before it can be considered.
• If the motion is in order, the chair will restate the motion and open debate.
• Debate is closed when: Discussion has ended, or a majority vote closes debate.
• The chair can restate the motion, and if necessary, clarifies the consequences of yes and no votes.
• The chair calls for a vote by asking "Roll call vote, please."

Generally, this is unnecessary as RONR already provides for this. There are a few aspects in which this deviates from RONR. The board is free to adopt such rules if it wishes. I do not advise permitting a majority to end debate. I leave the other two issues up to the board.

• Under the rules in RONR for small boards, seconds are not required.
• Under the rules in RONR, a 2/3 vote is required to end debate.
• Under the rules in RONR, the proper manner for the chair to call for a roll call vote would be "The Secretary [or “the Clerk”] will call the roll," although I do not find it particularly objectionable to use the less formal "Roll call vote, please" if the board prefers.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

General Rules of Debate

• All discussion must be relevant to the immediately pending question or motion.
• No member should speak more than once for each debatable motion.
• Speaking time for each member is limited to 3 minutes per motion.
• No cross debate is permitted.
• Debate can be ended by a majority vote of the board.

The first bullet point is already provided for in RONR.

The second bullet point differs from RONR, in that RONR permits members to speak twice under the ordinary rules and an unlimited number of times under the small board rules. The board may, however, adopt this rule if it wishes.

The third bullet point differs from RONR, in that RONR permits ten minutes per speech. The board may, however, adopt this rule if it wishes.

I am not familiar with the term "cross debate."

The last bullet point differs from RONR, in that RONR permits a 2/3 vote to end debate. The board may adopt this rule if it wishes, but I do not advise it.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

But how else are the rules they have proposed possibly putting our board and school district in jeopardy of a lawsuit, breaking the law, or worse? I feel like this is dangerous. 

I can't speak to whether the proposed rules place the board in legal jeopardy or conflict with applicable law. That is a question for an attorney. As a parliamentary matter, there is nothing preventing the board from adopting the proposed rules.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

The Superintendent and Treasurer are not elected officials, so I don't see how they can make motions.

It wasn't entirely clear to me whether the rule was intended to permit the Superintendent and Treasurer to make motions or if it referred to a member making a motion to implement the recommendations of those officers.

If it was the intent to permit non-members to make motions, this is permissible (albeit unusual) from a parliamentary perspective. I can't speak to any legal concerns.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

If it's the President's opinion as to whether a "motion is in order" can he just decide it's not and then a member can't propose it? There is no appeal of his decision?

I do not agree that the proposed rules as written prevent an appeal. These rules are supplemental to RONR, not a replacement for them, and therefore supersede RONR only in areas where they conflict. There is no reference to appeals, so my assumption would be that the rules in RONR pertaining to appeals are still applicable.

I would also clarify that while the President does make a ruling in the first instance as to whether a motion is in order, the chair's opinion in that regard is based on the chair's interpretation of the rules, not the chair's personal opinion. In any event, the chair's ruling may be appealed from, and overturned by majority vote.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

What can I do to protect my voice and the students in my district? 

This is a very broad question, but I understand it in this context to mean "How can I stop the board from adopting these rules?"

As a parliamentary matter, you can speak in debate against the proposed rules and vote against them. I can't speak to what legal recourse might be available - that is a question for an attorney.

On 4/8/2024 at 10:50 AM, Jupiter05 said:

I understand that there is an appeal motion in RONR. But if these new rules are added, can that motion still be used? Or do these special rules prevent it from being used?

In my view, the proposed rules as written do not prohibit an appeal.

Certainly an organization could adopt rules prohibiting an appeal if it wishes, although I would not advise it.

On 4/8/2024 at 10:57 AM, Jupiter05 said:

In essence, I feel these two members are attempting to keep me from forcing discussions or votes on topics they don't want brought up.

I want to be clear - if the board wishes to adopt rules requiring a second for motions, it is entirely free to do so. While the small board rules are well-suited for many small boards, a particular board is free to choose to use the rules ordinarily reserved for larger assemblies, in whole or in part. I take no position on that issue and leave that question to the judgment of the board. There's actually other aspects of the proposed rules that I find more problematic, as I have indicated above.

I would actually suggest the board simply adopt the following rules to start with, as I think this tackles most of what they want, and then refine further from there if needed. (Assuming, of course, that the board believes the following rules are in the board's interests.)

• A rule requiring seconds.
• A rule limiting the number of speeches in debate.
• A rule limiting the length of speeches in debate.

[Jupiter05]

On 4/8/2024 at 1:32 PM, Josh Martin said:

I do not agree that the proposed rules as written prevent an appeal. These rules are supplemental to RONR, not a replacement for them, and therefore supersede RONR only in areas where they conflict. There is no reference to appeals, so my assumption would be that the rules in RONR pertaining to appeals are still applicable.

 

Josh, thank you so much for your response. It was really helpful, and I appreciate you taking the time. 

 

What if the board wants to use the proposed rules to replace RONR? How do the above rules affect procedure & appeals, then? Would you mind to clarify each rule they are proposing and how it might prevent others from being heard? I am very new to this, have less than a week, and little hope of being able to explain it to them without help. I want to make sure everyone understands what will happen if we approve the rules and how it will affect people's rights.

[Josh Martin]

On 4/8/2024 at 1:42 PM, Jupiter05 said:

What if the board wants to use the proposed rules to replace RONR? How do the above rules affect procedure & appeals, then? Would you mind to clarify each rule they are proposing and how it might prevent others from being heard? I am very new to this, have less than a week, and little hope of being able to explain it to them without help. I want to make sure everyone understands what will happen if we approve the rules and how it will affect people's rights.

I quite frankly have no idea. The proposed rules as written are not suitable for use as a parliamentary authority in and of themselves, and I have no idea what would happen if an assembly unwisely attempted to use these rules in their totality without any support from a parliamentary authority or the common parliamentary law.

[Rob Elsman]

To the extent that the proposed rules conflict with the parliamentary authority, the board's own rules will be controlling. It will be for the deliberative process to elucidate the effects on the proceedings if the rules are adopted. I can only hope there will be the most thoughtful and enlightening debate before the vote is taken.

[Jupiter05]

Is there a Registered Parliamentarian here who would be willing to give written and signed opinions and clarifications on whether adopting the proposed rules is advisable? For both the idea of replacing RONR (what was proposed) and the separate idea of adopting the rules in addition to RONR (how one member interpreted the original motion). It may go a long way to helping inform others before they decide how to vote.

[Bruce Lages]

You might want to check to see if establishing RONR as parliamentary authority is contained in a higher-level rule covering municipal boards such as yours, say from your local or state government. If so, your board would not have the authority to replace RONR in its entirety.

[J. J.]

On 4/8/2024 at 3:38 PM, Jupiter05 said:

Is there a Registered Parliamentarian here who would be willing to give written and signed opinions and clarifications on whether adopting the proposed rules is advisable? For both the idea of replacing RONR (what was proposed) and the separate idea of adopting the rules in addition to RONR (how one member interpreted the original motion). It may go a long way to helping inform others before they decide how to vote.

I would suggest either or both the National Association of Parliamentarians and the America Institute of Parliamentarians. 

[Jupiter05]

On 4/8/2024 at 3:42 PM, J. J. said:

I would suggest either or both the National Association of Parliamentarians and the America Institute of Parliamentarians. 

Do I just write or call these organizations to ask for a written opinion? Is there a process to follow?

Edited April 8, 2024 at 07:54 PM by Jupiter05
added second sentence

[J. J.]

On 4/8/2024 at 3:54 PM, Jupiter05 said:

Do I just write or call these organizations to ask for a written opinion? Is there a process to follow?

Contact them and they will refer a credentialed parliamentarian. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/8/2024 at 1:42 PM, Jupiter05 said:

What if the board wants to use the proposed rules to replace RONR? How do the above rules affect procedure & appeals, then? Would you mind to clarify each rule they are proposing and how it might prevent others from being heard? I am very new to this, have less than a week, and little hope of being able to explain it to them without help. I want to make sure everyone understands what will happen if we approve the rules and how it will affect people's rights.

It is quite probable that your state regulations require that you use RONR as your parliamentary authority.  You'd need the advice of a lawyer to determine if that's true in your case.  You could probably adopt special rules of order to modify the rules in RONR, or that might not be allowed.

The rules proposed by whoever wrote that list indicates that they have no knowledge of what's in RONR since so much of it duplicates the rules in RONR already, or changes them just enough to show that the result was unencumbered by the thought process. 

[Josh Martin]

On 4/8/2024 at 2:38 PM, Jupiter05 said:

Is there a Registered Parliamentarian here who would be willing to give written and signed opinions and clarifications on whether adopting the proposed rules is advisable? For both the idea of replacing RONR (what was proposed) and the separate idea of adopting the rules in addition to RONR (how one member interpreted the original motion). It may go a long way to helping inform others before they decide how to vote.

I think you overestimate how much people value the opinion of parliamentarians, but if you think it would help, I am a Professional Registered Parliamentarian, and I am happy to sign on to all of the stuff I wrote in this thread. As J.J. notes, there's also a referral service.

[Joshua Katz]

I'm always puzzled by people who look at this very-thick book, developed over hundreds of years by several authorship teams, and say "nah, 10 bullet points should do it." Do they really think we're lugging this book around for no reason?

[Jupiter05]

On 4/8/2024 at 2:51 PM, Josh Martin said:

I quite frankly have no idea. The proposed rules as written are not suitable for use as a parliamentary authority in and of themselves, and I have no idea what would happen if an assembly unwisely attempted to use these rules in their totality without any support from a parliamentary authority or the common parliamentary law.

I appreciate your offer and may take you up on it. I've reached out to NAP and a referral from there. If I don't hear back from them, I will get in touch with you here. Thanks for your advice!!

[Jupiter05]

On 4/8/2024 at 12:51 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I don't read anything in what you shared that suggests appeals are prohibited.

I repeat my suggestion that your board engage in training by a professional parliamentarian. It doesn't have to be a long session to be worthwhile. It could start with a summary of where the proposed rules repeat, unnecessarily, what is already in RONR; I suspect that there is a lot of misunderstanding of what RONR says and doesn't say.

I appreciate your help. I completely agree that our board needs training. I hope that one day, these board members will be open to that idea or that new ones will be. 

[Jupiter05]

On 4/8/2024 at 8:56 PM, Joshua Katz said:

I'm always puzzled by people who look at this very-thick book, developed over hundreds of years by several authorship teams, and say "nah, 10 bullet points should do it." Do they really think we're lugging this book around for no reason?

This made me laugh so hard! I often feel the same in medicine. 

[Jupiter05]

On 4/8/2024 at 4:01 PM, J. J. said:

Contact them and they will refer a credentialed parliamentarian. 

I did what you suggested and am waiting on a reply from a PRP in my state. Thanks!

[Gary Novosielski]

"In the first place God made idiots.
 That was for practice.
 Then He made School Boards."

⁓Mark Twain.

Edited April 9, 2024 at 11:22 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Jupiter05]

I wanted to circle back and give an update on this. At the meeting two nights ago, I successfully stopped the approval of the proposed rules. Our board instead decided to consult with a Registered Parliamentarian, which the other board members were not aware was possible, and our legal counsel. Thank you all for your insight and wisdom.

[Drake Savory]

On 4/8/2024 at 8:54 AM, Jupiter05 said:

In the second board meeting, I made motions according to RR for small boards,

Isn't it the Chair's decision to use small board rules or not?  That it is not mandatory even if a small board?