Can a Chair Mute Board Members as Default?

[Guest Andy E]

Michigan Libertarians are a creative bunch, if nothing else.

At our latest board meeting, the Chair came up with this new process for Zoom meetings:

• Chair  notes that meeting participants will be muted by default, with hand raises noting a desire to speak, and the “X/no” or “Ta-da” emoji noting a desire to make an interrupting motion

• Note - Chair then clarified that an additional emoji could be used to second a motion.

However, RONR 9:31 states the following:

" ........ A group that holds such
alternative meetings does not lose its character as a
deliberative assembly (see 1:1) so long as the meetings
provide, at a minimum, conditions of opportunity for
simultaneous aural communication among all participating
members equivalent to those of meetings held in one room or
area. Under such conditions, an electronic meeting that is
properly authorized in the bylaws is treated as though it were a
meeting at which all the members who are participating are
actually present."

So would having all board members muted by default be a violation of this section of RONR ?

Thanks,
Andy Evans

 

[Rob Elsman]

The group is at liberty to determine for itself how to conduct its meetings and to be as silly as it wishes.

[Tomm]

On 4/17/2024 at 8:31 AM, Rob Elsman said:

The group is at liberty to determine for itself how to conduct its meetings

So too be clear, are you saying the rules need to be approved by the entire group by virtue of a discussion and vote rather than by allowing the rules to be made-up by a single person (i.e. chair)?

[Rob Elsman]

They are a creative bunch. Let them figure it out.

[Guest Andy E]

I should add that this ruling was challenged and then upheld by a majority vote of the board.  One board member then stated that they were violating RONR 9:31

[Rob Elsman]

Why does this objector want to invoke a rule that would bind a bunch of creative libertarians?

[Guest Andy E]

On 4/17/2024 at 2:26 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Why does this objector want to invoke a rule that would bind a bunch of creative libertarians?

We do what we want, right?  Well let's just say that the current Chair is not considered to be very good at having or running discussions,
pretty much his way or highway - so some view his use of the mute button as another means to dominate discussions.

Perhaps the eventual solution will be finding a new Chair who doesn't create as many controversies, but since he enjoys the support of a majority of the executive board, they are able to ignore the desires of the general membership at will.  We will see how that works out for them at next year's elections - at that point I imagine these board members and officers may learn who actually has the bulk of the power in our organization.      😉

[Rob Elsman]

The problem is that this oppressiveness sounds neither creative nor libertarian. If you all are going to front yourselves as a bunch of creative libertarians, then play the part.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/17/2024 at 9:42 AM, Guest Andy E said:

Michigan Libertarians are a creative bunch, if nothing else.

At our latest board meeting, the Chair came up with this new process for Zoom meetings:

• Chair  notes that meeting participants will be muted by default, with hand raises noting a desire to speak, and the “X/no” or “Ta-da” emoji noting a desire to make an interrupting motion

• Note - Chair then clarified that an additional emoji could be used to second a motion.

However, RONR 9:31 states the following:

" ........ A group that holds such
alternative meetings does not lose its character as a
deliberative assembly (see 1:1) so long as the meetings
provide, at a minimum, conditions of opportunity for
simultaneous aural communication among all participating
members equivalent to those of meetings held in one room or
area. Under such conditions, an electronic meeting that is
properly authorized in the bylaws is treated as though it were a
meeting at which all the members who are participating are
actually present."

So would having all board members muted by default be a violation of this section of RONR ?

Thanks,
Andy Evans

 

Well, let's back up to the point where the chair just made these rules up out of thin air.  If the members never approved them, they're not in effect.

And unless Zoom meetings are provided for in your bylaws, they're not permitted.

[Richard Brown]

On 4/17/2024 at 3:48 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Well, let's back up to the point where the chair just made these rules up out of thin air.  If the members never approved them, they're not in effect.

And unless Zoom meetings are provided for in your bylaws, they're not permitted.

Mr. Novosielski is correct.  However, it appears that the board MAY have "endorsed" or approved of the rules, thereby making them valid..... assuming that the board does have this authority. Your bylaws and any special rules of order you adopt supersede the rules in RONR. I  do question whether they went about it the right way, though.  How, exactly, did the board go about "approving" the chair's improperly imposed rules? Those sound like special rules of order.  If RoNR is your parliamentary authority and your bylaws don't provide otherwise, the adoption of a special rule of order requires both previous notice and a two-thirds vote, or, in the alternative, the vote of a majority of the entire membership (in this case the board).  RONR 2:22 (12th ed.).  In addition, the authority to conduct electronic meetings must be authorized in the bylaws.  RONR 9:30.

Note:  The vote of a majority of the entire membership is not the same thing as a regular majority vote. RONR 44:9.

[J. J.]

On 4/17/2024 at 2:16 PM, Guest Andy E said:

I should add that this ruling was challenged and then upheld by a majority vote of the board.  One board member then stated that they were violating RONR 9:31

It would not violate anything in 9:31 any more than saying that someone must be recognized to violates a right to debate (42:2-5).   There may be questions relating to recognition (see 25:11). 

[Josh Martin]

On 4/17/2024 at 8:42 AM, Guest Andy E said:

At our latest board meeting, the Chair came up with this new process for Zoom meetings:

• Chair  notes that meeting participants will be muted by default, with hand raises noting a desire to speak, and the “X/no” or “Ta-da” emoji noting a desire to make an interrupting motion

• Note - Chair then clarified that an additional emoji could be used to second a motion.

First, electronic meetings cannot be held at all unless authorized by your bylaws or applicable law.

Assuming they are authorized, I am not concerned by these rules. These rules are not at all unusual. Many organization adopt rules of this nature for meetings held over Zoom. Rules of this nature are quite frequently necessary for Zoom meetings in order to make the meetings manageable. So long as there are mechanisms for members to obtain recognition, speak, and make such other motions as necessary, it's all good.

I would also note that these rules are not really entirely dissimilar from in-person meetings. At in-person meetings, there are quite frequently procedures in place for members to access the microphones.

Now if the organization doesn't like these rules, it's free to adopt others. But I don't see anything inherently wrong with these rules.

I do strongly recommend some level of control over microphones for the chair and the chair's assistants for Zoom meetings. It's going to be an absolute disaster otherwise.

On 4/17/2024 at 8:42 AM, Guest Andy E said:

So would having all board members muted by default be a violation of this section of RONR ?

No.

On 4/17/2024 at 12:39 PM, Tomm said:

So too be clear, are you saying the rules need to be approved by the entire group by virtue of a discussion and vote rather than by allowing the rules to be made-up by a single person (i.e. chair)?

Yes, I think that is correct.

On 4/17/2024 at 1:16 PM, Guest Andy E said:

I should add that this ruling was challenged and then upheld by a majority vote of the board.  One board member then stated that they were violating RONR 9:31

Then it appears the board has determined that the board is not violating RONR (12th ed.) 9:31. Which I think is for the best, because I agree.

[Richard Brown]

I hope it is undisputed that the chair alone does not have the authority to promulgate and enforce such a rule.  Such a rule must be adopted as a special rule of order by the board or the membership.  The problem here is that the chair DID single-handedly promulgate such a rule.  We are told that "this ruling was challenged and then upheld by a majority vote of the board."  That does not tell us much.  What was the basis of the challenge?  Was it a formal point of order? Was it that "I don't like that rule"?  Or was it that "the chair has no authority to impose such a rule"?   What was the basis of the board upholding the rule?  

Since we don't know the nature of the objection to the chair imposing the rule or the nature of the board "ratifying" it, we really don't know what happened or how the rule came to be "adopted" if it was adopted at all.  We don't know if the majority vote of the board approving whatever the chair did was a regular majority vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership of the board.  I just don't know enough to say whether this rule has been validly adopted, but, if the board is inclined to support the chair no matter what, it may be a moot point.  I do agree, however, that the rule itself does not appear to be entirely unreasonable.  My issue is whether it has been validly adopted.  (Personally, I don't like the rule for a small board, but that's not my call).

I suggest that the board go through the proper process of formally adopting whatever special rules of order it wants regarding muting members and seeking recognition in electronic meetings and the conduct of electronic meetings in general.

 

Edited April 18, 2024 at 09:41 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Dan Honemann]

When members participating in a board meeting are muted, the group that is meeting does not constitute a deliberative assembly (see 1:1, 9:31, 9:34).

[J. J.]

On 4/18/2024 at 6:29 PM, Dan Honemann said:

When members participating in a board meeting are muted, the group that is meeting does not constitute a deliberative assembly (see 1:1, 9:31, 9:34).

Wouldn't that be the case if they cannot enter into debate at an in person meeting? 

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/18/2024 at 7:49 PM, J. J. said:

Wouldn't that be the case if they cannot enter into debate at an in person meeting? 

Why can't they?

[J. J.]

On 4/18/2024 at 7:58 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Why can't they?

They are not recognized. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/18/2024 at 8:01 PM, J. J. said:

They are not recognized. 

But if they talk they can be heard.  That's the requirement we're concerned with.

[Josh Martin]

On 4/18/2024 at 5:29 PM, Dan Honemann said:

When members participating in a board meeting are muted, the group that is meeting does not constitute a deliberative assembly (see 1:1, 9:31, 9:34).

I have some follow-up questions on this. Because setting aside this particular situation, I am very concerned about an extreme version of this view making all Zoom meetings impractical.

First, is it your view that, in order to constitute a deliberative assembly as is defined in 9:31, members must be unmuted at all times, or simply that they must have the ability to unmute themselves if they choose?

If board members could be muted by the chair on an as-needed basis (due to disruption or background noise or whatever), would that be permissible? (I am assuming the answer is "yes," since the sample rules in the appendix provide for this option.)

What exactly distinguishes this from controlling access to the microphones in a large convention hall? While strictly speaking, persons who do not have access to the microphones are not "muted," it is still the case that such persons will not be able to heard by the vast majority of persons present.

Assuming that meetings of this nature are authorized in the bylaws or applicable law, even if adopting rules of this nature would mean that the meeting does not, strictly speaking, constitute a deliberative assembly, does this fact mean that the rules in question may not be adopted except by an amendment to the bylaws? Or does it simply mean that the organization has deviated in some manner from the deliberative assembly defined in 1:1, and therefore the rules in RONR will not be fully applicable?

"The rules in this book are principally applicable to meeting bodies possessing all of the foregoing characteristics. Certain of these parliamentary rules or customs may sometimes also find application in other gatherings which, although resembling the deliberative assembly in varying degrees, do not have all of its attributes as listed above." RONR (12th ed.) 1:2

Generally, it is my view that in order for a Zoom meeting to be at all functional, the following should be imposed on members, at a minimum.

• Even if members have the ability to unmute themselves, members should be instructed to remain muted unless they are presently speaking, or seeking recognition to do so.
• The chair (or persons assigned to this task) should have the ability to mute members if needed.

In many assemblies, this may be sufficient, but my experience is that even stricter audio controls may well be necessary in assemblies where one or more of the following is true:

• The assembly is particularly large
• The assembly has a number of members who have a tendency to speak without being recognized
• The assembly has a number of members who are not particularly familiar with technology

Generally, my view is that so long as mechanisms exist for members to be exercise their rights as members, such as mechanisms to obtain recognition and to make interrupting motions, and those mechanisms are applied appropriately, this still constitutes a deliberative assembly.

It appears there is a suspicion that the mechanisms in this case will not be applied appropriately, and that the chair may abuse this power and refuse to recognize persons who should be recognized. To the extent this is correct, I think that is very concerning, but I do not find the rules themselves to be concerning. I am also in agreement with Mr. Brown that any rules in this matter must be adopted by the board itself, not by the chair acting alone.

Edited April 19, 2024 at 12:25 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 4/19/2024 at 5:58 AM, Dan Honemann said:

But if they talk they can be heard.  That's the requirement we're concerned with.

They would not need to be heard to seek recognition.

A rule could be adopted, in an in person meeting, that to seek recognition, a member must hold up a certain colored  and/or shaped card.  Once the card is raised, the chair recognizes the member.  The member then states the motion.  That would not change the characteristic of this as a deliberative assembly.

In this case, their appears to a de facto rule, that if a member wishes recognition, he signals by typing an emoji.  He is then recognized and speaks.   That does not change the deliberative assembly characteristic. 

Edited April 19, 2024 at 12:29 PM by J. J.

[Richard Brown]

On 4/19/2024 at 7:22 AM, Josh Martin said:

I have some follow-up questions on this. Because setting aside this particular situation, I am very concerned about an extreme version of this view making all Zoom meetings impractical. . . . .

I am also very concerned with this and have the same questions and concerns expressed by Mr. Martin.  They are very good questions and I thank Mr. Martin for rasing them.  It is the possible abuse of rules such as the ones proposed in this case that concern me greatly.  We had a somewhat similar situation with the 2021 NAP virtual convention at which it was VERY hard.... almost impossible.... for members to obtain recognition and the ability to speak.

[J. J.]

I now have concerns about alternate methods of recognition even in an in person meeting.

I would not have a problem with a rule permitting a signaling device to be used for recognition, e.g. a card or some type of light system, in an in person meeting. 

[Atul Kapur]

Adding to the list of questions, one for @Josh Martin and @J. J.: how  should a member with an interrupting motion obtain the floor? The problem with alternate recognition methods is that they require recognition by the chair.

Related, does the entire assembly need to be able to know who is seeking recognition or seeking to legitimately interrupt? Or is it adequate that only the chair (± assistants) would be made aware? This would, among other things, prevent a member from realizing that a point of order regarding preference in recognition should be raised.

[Josh Martin]

On 4/19/2024 at 9:25 AM, Atul Kapur said:

how  should a member with an interrupting motion obtain the floor?

The organization should adopt rules addressing how a member with an interrupting motion shall obtain the floor. An assembly which holds its meetings via Zoom will need to adopt rules about how to handle a number of issues, including, but not limited to, the issue of seeking recognition and obtaining the floor.

"Various additional rules (in the bylaws, special rules of order, standing rules, or instructions to a committee, as appropriate) may also be necessary or advisable regarding the conduct of electronic meetings, such as rules relating to:

• the type of equipment or computer software required for participation in meetings, whether the organization must provide such equipment or software, and contingencies for technical difficulties or malfunctions;
• methods for determining the presence of a quorum;
• the conditions under which a member may raise a point of order doubting the presence of a quorum, and the conditions under which the continued presence of a quorum is presumed if no such point of order is raised;
• methods for seeking recognition and obtaining the floor;
• means by which motions may be submitted in writing during a meeting; and
• methods for taking and verifying votes." RONR (12th ed.) 9:36, emphasis added

Again, I would note that the rules pertaining to some of these issues (specifically, the last three bullets) are also likely to be issues that an assembly will need to address for large in-person meetings.

"In large conventions or similar bodies, some of the rules applicable to the assignment of the floor may require adaptation, which, pending the adoption of appropriate convention standing rules or special rules of order, the chair may direct. For example, in a large hall where microphones are in use and members must walk some distance to reach one, members may be asked to line up at numbered microphones. They may be recognized in numerical order, or someone may list them for the chair in the order in which assistant sergeants-at-arms turned on lights affixed to the microphones. It may be provided that a member who has a priority matter, such as a point of order, may ask the assistant at the microphone to flash the light to so indicate. Should a member, called in whatever order is established, move an amendment or other debatable motion, others awaiting a turn should stand aside unless their debate is germane to the new motion. If the Previous Question or a motion to limit debate is moved, members who have been waiting in line cannot validly protest; as in all other cases, the chair cannot choose the occasions when such motions will be in order. He may advise the assembly that, if it wishes to continue debate and hear from those waiting in line, a minority greater than one third has this within its power." RONR (12th ed.) 42:16

On 4/19/2024 at 9:25 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Related, does the entire assembly need to be able to know who is seeking recognition or seeking to legitimately interrupt? Or is it adequate that only the chair (± assistants) would be made aware? This would, among other things, prevent a member from realizing that a point of order regarding preference in recognition should be raised.

This is an interesting question, and is certainly one the assembly will need to consider in adopting its rules.

Although I would note that, with respect to the rules presented in the present instance, the rules appear to be of a nature that the assembly would know who is seeking recognition. The rules provide for members to seek recognition by means of utilizing the "raise hands" and "emoji" features in Zoom, which are displayed on the screen for all present in the meeting to see.

I am aware that some organizations instead utilize a system in which requests for recognition are sent privately to the chair or to assistants, and that certainly raises some additional questions of trust, as well as to how members could raise a Point of Order concerning the chair's assignment of the floor. I could certainly see an argument that those are not "conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participating members equivalent to those of meetings held in one room or area," since in an in-person meeting you can see (and perhaps hear, depending on the assembly's rules and customs) who is seeking recognition. I'm not sure I am prepared at this time to make a final judgment on that, but I see your point.

The fact remains ultimately that for any assembly, it is necessary to balance concerns about the chair and assistants being malicious (or simply overwhelmed) with concerns about ensuring that the meeting is maintained in a manner that the assembly can hear the persons who are speaking. The concerns on both sides of this coin are enhanced for an electronic meeting.

Edited April 19, 2024 at 02:53 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 4/19/2024 at 10:25 AM, Atul Kapur said:

 

Related, does the entire assembly need to be able to know who is seeking recognition or seeking to legitimately interrupt? Or is it adequate that only the chair (± assistants) would be made aware? This would, among other things, prevent a member from realizing that a point of order regarding preference in recognition should be raised.

While that is good question, in this case, using the emoji function, all members can see the emoji.

That said, I can see a situation where this could occur at an in person meeting.  For example, a member would push a green button seeking recognition and a red button seeking to interrupt.  A panel in front of the chair would show which member is signaling, but only the chair would see it.