Can a Chair Mute Board Members as Default?

[laser158689]

This seems to point to the need for some "Best Practices" documentation that could be shared from the RONR FAQ page, maybe some sample rules for handling zoom-based (and other common platforms eg Google Meets) meetings.  
 

[Rob Elsman]

In the back of RONR (12th ed.), there is an appendix, "Sample Rules for Electronic Meetings".  These are not intended to be binding on societies that have adopted the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised as their parliamentary authority, but they may be useful as guides for crafting special rules of order for those societies that authorize electronic meetings in their bylaws.

[jkane1517]

Interesting thread...  Reading through, I think there are two levels to this issue.

On the first level, can a group adopt specific rules of order, not in conflict with fundamental principles or higher authorities that permit this zoom/online procedure.  Yes, in principle the procedure as outlined here doesn't cause a problem as long as the participants can unmute themselves.  My thinking is thus, the procedure is fine if the practice of having participants use emojis to be recognize by the chair unless the need arises to engage in rising for either a point of order or appeal or some urgent matter that requires interrupting the speaker.   Take for example the issues raised in 62:7-9.  These would almost always require that a member unmute and speak in a manner that didn't have recognition from the chair.  Thus,  in my view while I think the procedure itself is fine, it is an issue if members do not have the ability to unmute themselves.  

To summarize, another way, I think the issue isn't that members are muted on zoom, but do members have the ability to unmute themselves to exercise certain parliamentary rights?  So it is not the issue of being muted, but the ability of members to unmute if needed.

Edited April 24, 2024 at 04:12 AM by jkane1517

[J. J.]

On 4/24/2024 at 12:11 AM, jkane1517 said:

Interesting thread...  Reading through, I think there are two levels to this issue.

On the first level, can a group adopt specific rules of order, not in conflict with fundamental principles or higher authorities that permit this zoom/online procedure.  Yes, in principle the procedure as outlined here doesn't cause a problem as long as the participants can unmute themselves.  My thinking is thus, the procedure is fine if the practice of having participants use emojis to be recognize by the chair unless the need arises to engage in rising for either a point of order or appeal or some urgent matter that requires interrupting the speaker.   Take for example the issues raised in 62:7-9.  These would almost always require that a member unmute and speak in a manner that didn't have recognition from the chair.  Thus,  in my view while I think the procedure itself is fine, it is an issue if members do not have the ability to unmute themselves.  

To summarize, another way, I think the issue isn't that members are muted on zoom, but do members have the ability to unmute themselves to exercise certain parliamentary rights?  So it is not the issue of being muted, but the ability of members to unmute if needed.

I would first note that holding a meeting that is not in person must be authorized in the bylaws.

Second, at some point, the chair will have to take someone off mute.  At that point, if there has been abuse, that member can raise a point of order and appeal if necessary.  I would also note that the same type of abuse could happen at an in person meeting. 

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/24/2024 at 8:11 AM, J. J. said:

I would first note that holding a meeting that is not in person must be authorized in the bylaws.

Second, at some point, the chair will have to take someone off mute.  At that point, if there has been abuse, that member can raise a point of order and appeal if necessary.  I would also note that the same type of abuse could happen at an in person meeting. 

 

 

At an in-person meeting of a subordinate board of average size, whenever a member says something he will be heard. Whether it is or is not in order for him to do so is beside the point.  If this is not true, for any reason, then as far as RONR is concerned the meeting is not a meeting of a deliberative assembly.

[J. J.]

On 4/24/2024 at 8:50 AM, Dan Honemann said:

At an in-person meeting of a subordinate board of average size, whenever a member says something he will be heard. Whether it is or is not in order for him to do so is beside the point.  If this is not true, for any reason, then as far as RONR is concerned the meeting is not a meeting of a deliberative assembly.

The key words are "subordinate board of average size."  That is certainly not the case in all assemblies.  I would not claim that, in a large body, the case where a member may not be heard by all (unless recognized) would change that characteristic of a deliberative assembly. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/24/2024 at 8:55 AM, J. J. said:

The key words are "subordinate board of average size."  That is certainly not the case in all assemblies.  I would not claim that, in a large body, the case where a member may not be heard by all (unless recognized) would change that characteristic of a deliberative assembly. 

I do not disagree.  The test is whether or not the assembly is meeting under "conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" as would exist if it were meeting "in a single room or area".

All that is needed is an honest answer to the question as to whether or not such conditions exist.

[J. J.]

On 4/24/2024 at 9:17 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I do not disagree.  The test is whether or not the assembly is meeting under "conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" as would exist if it were meeting "in a single room or area".

All that is needed is an honest answer to the question as to whether or not such conditions exist.

Even something in a "single room or area" may not be a deliberative assembly, by this definition. 

A second question is if a meeting of a society whose members are deaf could never be a deliberative assembly? 
 

Edited April 24, 2024 at 02:43 PM by J. J.

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/24/2024 at 9:40 AM, J. J. said:

Even something in a "single room or area" may not be a deliberative assembly, by this definition. 

Not if you understand the english language.

[J. J.]

On 4/24/2024 at 11:28 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Not if you understand the english language.

You came up with the definition.  I can see a large area, where not every member can be heard. 

[jkane1517]

On 4/24/2024 at 8:11 AM, J. J. said:

I would first note that holding a meeting that is not in person must be authorized in the bylaws.

Second, at some point, the chair will have to take someone off mute.  At that point, if there has been abuse, that member can raise a point of order and appeal if necessary.  I would also note that the same type of abuse could happen at an in person meeting. 

 

 

I should clarify that since I live in NY State, the state legislature has enacted laws that govern a few aspects of online meeting in various areas of the state code (POL, NPL etc) setting standards on what is required for online meetings.  In NY State under article 6, non profits can conduct online or virtual meetings unless their bylaws prohibit such meetings.   FOr a meeting of members there is one set of state laws and for meetings of the board a slightly different set of laws.   Of course, this is NY state specific but to be clear in NY state, such meetings do not need to be authorized in the bylaws, but they can't be prohibited in order to hold and online/virtual meeting.  So in the case of NY at least, state statute is the controlling authority at least initially.

[jkane1517]

I again find myself asking the technical question first.  Is the use of mute absolute or voluntary.  That is to say in zoom, is mute applied unilaterally in a manner that the participants can not remove such as when zoom is setup in a webinar and mute is absolute?  If so, the absolute application of mute would to me violate several areas of RRO as well as fundamental principles. 

Or is mute simply applied when people enter and as a special rule of order but can be remove by a member themselves should they need to make a point of order, appeal or even in a very rare case of having to take action if the chair abuses their basic duties.

If a member must leave their screen for a moment on zoom and all of a sudden a very noisy lawnmower starts up right outside and you can't hear anything, since the normal online procedure would be for the chair or zoom host to mute the account that is disruptive when the zoom member has stepped out...   Only the zoom member can unmute themselves upon their return.  Seems like a reasonable way forward.

In my view the only egregious issue is if the chair can unilaterally mute members who can not unmute and exercise certain parliamentary rights should the need arise.  In an in person meeting, members may refrain from all sorts of actions, procedures etc but they retain the ability to exercise those rights should it be needed or in their view warranted.  I'm simply proposing that the technical means of meeting online shouldn't limit those rights while at the same time recognizing muting a barking do or muting on entry may be a deciours way to conduct the meeting as well.

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/24/2024 at 1:35 PM, J. J. said:

You came up with the definition.  I can see a large area, where not every member can be heard. 

That may well be, but since the assembly is meeting in a single room or area, the assembly is obviously meeting under "conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" as would exist if it were meeting "in a single room or area".

[J. J.]

On 4/24/2024 at 3:12 PM, Dan Honemann said:

That may well be, but since the assembly is meeting in a single room or area, the assembly is obviously meeting under "conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" as would exist if it were meeting "in a single room or area".

Yet, even in a single room, the "opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" may be lacking. 

[Richard Brown]

On 4/24/2024 at 6:13 PM, J. J. said:

Yet, even in a single room, the "opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" may be lacking. 

Not in the way it is with the rules imposed by the chair in this situation.  You're reaching, JJ.

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/24/2024 at 7:13 PM, J. J. said:

Yet, even in a single room, the "opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" may be lacking. 

Well, if the meeting is being held in a single room, that is all that is required to constitute this particular characteristic of a deliberative assembly.

But since you simply refuse to recognize the obvious in connection with what RONR so clearly says in regard to all of this, I see no point in making any further effort to convince you to do so.

[Wright Stuff]

On 4/24/2024 at 3:12 PM, Dan Honemann said:

That may well be, but since the assembly is meeting in a single room or area, the assembly is obviously meeting under "conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" as would exist if it were meeting "in a single room or area".

I'm a nobody, but even I don't see how there is an ongoing debate on this topic. This question is clearly answered in RONR. We dealt with it at length during COVID. Participants in an online meeting do not have to have an open mic all the time. It's reasonable for them to be muted. However, the participant must be the one controlling her mute button. 

[J. J.]

On 4/24/2024 at 7:26 PM, Richard Brown said:

Not in the way it is with the rules imposed by the chair in this situation.  You're reaching, JJ.

I am not looking at it in just this situation. I am looking at the broader rule. 

If the definition is that they all have to be in the same physical location, no matter how conducive for conducting a meeting, I would agree. 

[Josh Martin]

On 4/24/2024 at 2:05 PM, jkane1517 said:

I again find myself asking the technical question first.  Is the use of mute absolute or voluntary.  That is to say in zoom, is mute applied unilaterally in a manner that the participants can not remove such as when zoom is setup in a webinar and mute is absolute?  If so, the absolute application of mute would to me violate several areas of RRO as well as fundamental principles. 

Or is mute simply applied when people enter and as a special rule of order but can be remove by a member themselves should they need to make a point of order, appeal or even in a very rare case of having to take action if the chair abuses their basic duties.

If a member must leave their screen for a moment on zoom and all of a sudden a very noisy lawnmower starts up right outside and you can't hear anything, since the normal online procedure would be for the chair or zoom host to mute the account that is disruptive when the zoom member has stepped out...   Only the zoom member can unmute themselves upon their return.  Seems like a reasonable way forward.

In my view the only egregious issue is if the chair can unilaterally mute members who can not unmute and exercise certain parliamentary rights should the need arise.  In an in person meeting, members may refrain from all sorts of actions, procedures etc but they retain the ability to exercise those rights should it be needed or in their view warranted.  I'm simply proposing that the technical means of meeting online shouldn't limit those rights while at the same time recognizing muting a barking do or muting on entry may be a deciours way to conduct the meeting as well.

I don't disagree with any of these concerns, but I would respectfully suggest that, as always, these concerns must be balanced with the opposite concern. In a very large assembly, constantly having to mute members (whether this is an issue due to members' unfamiliarity with the technology or due to malicious intent) is going to become extremely tedious. Whether it is preferable for members to have the ability to unmute themselves (or not) will ultimately be up to the organization to determine for itself what rules fit its needs.

Everyone is very concerned (and I think rightly so) about abuse by the chair, but I don't think some posters are sufficiently concerned about abuse (or simply error) by the members.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/24/2024 at 6:13 PM, J. J. said:

Yet, even in a single room, the "opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" may be lacking. 

Perhaps, but it is undeniable that the opportunity exists exactly to the extent that it would if the participants were in a single room—because they are.

[J. J.]

On 4/25/2024 at 11:07 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Perhaps, but it is undeniable that the opportunity exists exactly to the extent that it would if the participants were in a single room—because they are.

I am now wondering if the single room or area is the actual standard.

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/26/2024 at 7:12 AM, J. J. said:

I am now wondering if the single room or area is the actual standard.

It is as far as RONR is concerned.  

[Josh Martin]

On 4/24/2024 at 7:50 AM, Dan Honemann said:

At an in-person meeting of a subordinate board of average size, whenever a member says something he will be heard. Whether it is or is not in order for him to do so is beside the point.  If this is not true, for any reason, then as far as RONR is concerned the meeting is not a meeting of a deliberative assembly.

On 4/24/2024 at 2:12 PM, Dan Honemann said:

That may well be, but since the assembly is meeting in a single room or area, the assembly is obviously meeting under "conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" as would exist if it were meeting "in a single room or area".

But Mr. Honemann, I think what J.J. is getting at is that exactly what constitutes "conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" as would exist if it were meeting "in a single room or area" will vary depending on the size of the assembly.

It's quite correct that "At an in-person meeting of a subordinate board of average size, whenever a member says something he will be heard."

But in a larger assembly, the conditions for that assembly meeting "in a single room or area" will be different than "a subordinate board of average size." As a consequence, what it means for such an assembly meeting electronically to constitute ""conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" as would exist if it were meeting "in a single room or area"" will be different that what is required to constitute such conditions for a subordinate board of average size.

Now, there is certainly a question of whether it is wise as a practical matter for any assembly larger than "a subordinate board of average size" to meet electronically at all, but to the extent an organization chooses to have such meetings, it seems that such meetings will necessarily be different than a smaller assembly, just as would be the case for an in-person meeting.

I think there was perhaps an assumption based on the title of this thread (Can a Chair Mute Board Members as Default?) that this is "a subordinate board of average size," but for a political party I'm not certain that assumption is correct. The "board" (or "central committee" or "executive committee," as they are often instead referred to) are often quite a bit larger than "a subordinate board of average size."

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/26/2024 at 9:14 AM, Josh Martin said:

But Mr. Honemann, I think what J.J. is getting at is that exactly what constitutes "conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" as would exist if it were meeting "in a single room or area" will vary depending on the size of the assembly.

Mr. Martin, if you will look back over this entire (unnecessarily prolonged) thread you will note that the question initially asked relates to proceedings in a board, and every one of my responses was directed to this factual setting.  I have constantly been referring to an assembly the size of an average subordinate board, and many times direct responses to what I have posted have been flat-out wrong because they do not say anything at all about their being addressed to a materially different factual situation.