I just watched the board meeting video and noticed a few things: 1) It was interesting that there was never a vote to approve the agenda! Approval isn't even listed on the agenda? 2) I was happy to hear that they didn't "approve" the Treasurer's Report and only filed it for audit. (Note: the only Treasures Report that the board should actually "approve" is the annual one compiled and submitted by the accountants who performed the annual audit see RONR 48:24) 3) The motion to end debate (called Previous Question) was passed with only a majority vote but a 2/3rds vote is what was required. (See RONR 16:5 (7)) (See video at 1:30:00) And after watching the report from the IT department you would have thought that the chair would have ordered a special meeting to address the issues that were presented? In accordance with Article V, §5, a written request from 3 board members can call a Special Session. I think it's important enough that if a Special Session isn't called by the president, then three members of the board should submit a written request and call for one to address the funding of new IT equipment. But basically, it was another wasted meeting where none of the Member's wishes were granted!
Spot on FYI, hopefully the board is reading this and will learn from it. In fact, one of the goals of the Sun City Advocates is to educate and we care not if it is a member, a staffer or a board member. The simple reality is any board member can call the question but it takes a two-thirds majority vote to cut off discussion. That way a simply 5/4 majority can't shut down debate and sadly it appears that is where we will often be this year. BTW, i know there has been much discussion about the president voting. A good friend of mine has tried to clarify that for her. I don't recall at any time where the discussion included voting some of the time, not all of the time, or just to break a tie vote. Just vote madam president so we know where you stand and who you stand with.
I do hope the members of the board are reading this. One of the problems is the Board is using two sets of standards on how to run their meetings. The first and well established standards are the ones most people understand which is the chair doesn't vote unless it would affect the results of the vote, more on that later. Established standards for large assemblies also means the chair doesn't typically take part in any debate or discussion. Again, this is to maintain the chairs appearance of impartiality in the process. However, as we have all witnessed when the chair voices her opinion or members are allowed to speak as many times as they want when they should only be allowed to speak twice, the board meetings are being run under a combination of standard rules for large assemblies and Procedures in Small Boards. Procedure in Small Boards (RONR 12th. Ed. 49:21) In a board meeting where there are not more than about a dozen members present, some of the formality that is necessary in a large assembly would hinder business. The rules governing such meetings are different from the rules that hold in other assemblies, in the following respects: 1) Members may raise a hand instead of standing when seeking to obtain the floor, and may remain seated while making motions or speaking. 2) Motions need not be seconded. 3) There is no limit to the number of times a member can speak to a debatable question. Appeals, however, are debatable under the regular rules—that is, each member (except the chair) can speak only once in debate on them, while the chair may speak twice. 4) Informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending. 5) When a proposal is perfectly clear to all present, a vote can be taken without a motion’s having been introduced. Unless agreed to by unanimous consent, however, all proposed actions must be approved by a vote under the same rules as in larger meetings, except that a vote can be taken initially by a show of hands, which is often a better method in small meetings. 6) The chairman need not rise while putting questions to a vote. 7) If the chairman is a member, he may, without leaving the chair, speak in informal discussions and in debate, and vote on all questions. It would certainly be nice if everybody knew which rules the meetings were being run by! I personally don't care which ones they do or don't use but it would be nice to have a little consistency from one meeting to the next! One way to do that would be to establish a special rule of order that states the meetings will be run under some or all of the less formal procedures applicable to small boards. I won't get into it now but one of the other problems with the corporate documents is the fact that the RCSC uses Robert's Rules of Order as their parliamentary authority, but the way they document, organize and post their corporate documents doesn't comply with Robert's Rules. The corporate documents lack a listing of any special rules of order or standing rules. As far as the chair voting: The chair can always vote in a small board or committee. Small boards and committees (i.e., under 12 people) get to relax Robert’s Rules a bit. The chair can always vote if the vote is a secret. If you’re using a secret ballot (anonymous voting), the impartiality issue is gone, and the chair can vote. The chair can always vote if that individual vote would affect the result. Here’s the rule: If the chair’s vote would make a difference on whether a motion passes or fails, the chair can vote. But the chair doesn’t have to vote in this instance. Most think that the chair can only vote to break a tie but something most people fail to recognize is that the chair can also vote to create a tie causing a motion to fail! I certainly hope this has helped. A contribution to education by the Sun City Advocates.
It is interesting because i know there are critics out there of the Advocates, but the reality is our goal is simple: to help restore Sun City to its roots; a time and place where ownership, self-governance and accountability were at the foundation of everything they/we did. How in the world can that be a bad thing? Let me just be blunt, the past 15 years the drift from those tenets has been sizematic (there is no such word, but for my purposes, really freaking big). I won't belabor how or who got us there because while it is easy to blame the gm or management, the truth is with 20 members at board meetings, just doing what they wanted became the norm. That is why what they are seeing now with burgeoning attendance and outspoken members is so hard for them to grasp. Someone pointed it out, this years president told us we needed to be involved, it was our responsibility. She was dead on right, though when you watch the videos of the meeting she seems taken aback we are there and unwilling to accept the mistakes and issues we continue to raise. From my perspective, the timing for the return to a community where the members actually matter and are heard is perfectly appropriate. Losing the precepts we were built on and around would be tragic.
