Use Robert's Rules to Maintain Order?

At a recent meeting, the BOD was drafting its answers to questions posed by a CPA related to an audit inquiry. A member of the community spoke out and made an allegation of fraud against a board member. The ensuing 90-minute discussion completely derailed the meeting's agenda. How could a board member or President have maintained order -- or limited the duration of the discussion -- using Robert's Rules, or not, in this instance?

Was this an association meeting at which all members of the association were present? Or was ir a BOD meeting at which association members were allowed to attend?

No matter, really, the offending member ahould have been immediately "gaveled down" as they say.

If you are strictly following Roberts Rules, the following are some of the instances when a person may be called out of order:

1. Non-members of the body that is meeting have no right to speak unless invited to do so.

2. No member can speak unless recognized by the chair.

3. Personal attacks and accusations are always out of order.

4. Debate must be limited to the merits of the motion on the floor and only when recognized.

5. Each member may speak only once on the question until all members have had the opportunity to speak. Members may then speak again on the question when recognized by the chair.

6. The speaker having the floor may not be interrupted except for certain motions, such as to call a Point of Order (which should have been called by a board member when the president failed to act).

The chair, or president, may order a disruptive person who is not a member of the assembly that is meeting to leave the room. If the person does not do so willingly, probably the police should be called, since trying to escort the person out may result in assult charges. (I know one president who did call the police to remove someone at an association meeting.) The president has no authority to order a person who is a member of the assembly that is meeting to leave, but the assembly that is meeting, by a majority vote of its members, can demand that a disruptive member leave.

Robert's Rules of Order maintain civility and structure in a meeting like a hammer builds a house.
In the hands of someone who knows how to use it, and uses it properly, it works.
Just sitting there in the toolbox, or applied wildly by an idiot, it doesn't.

I was at a barn burner meeting about three years ago. The Board was, in all honesty, being unnecessarily rude to a homeowner that was just trying to express a concern. One resident had enough and stood up and started in with "Look- you guys work for us and you will listen to us..." followed by cheers and yells of "right on" and "you tell em...". The poor Board President starting tapping her pencil yelling "the Board has the floor, the Board has the floor!". The harder she tapped her pencil the more the room turned on them.

The board president just adjourned the meeting and the whole Board left the club house to boos and jeers.

Once a meeting devolves to that level, forget Roberts rules, just adjourn the meeting.

Kelly,

First, if you are truly trying to abide by parliamentary procedure and follow Roberts Rules, the treasurer has no authority to recognize anyone. Only the chair (president) can do that. All members, when speaking, must address the chair, not other members or officers. Addressing anyone other than the chair is out of order. If the treasurer has the floor, then the treasurer, speaking to the chair, may yield the floor to another member. It is then the chair's (president's) decision whether or not to allow that.

As for your statement "I once asked a rudimentary question of the association attorney regarding formal resolutions and his response was that anyone using Robert's Rules in a small community like ours should be shot.", that's not surprising. Most attorneys, surprisingly, do not know parliamentary procedure. I once asked a lawyer a parliamentary question. His response was, "Ask a parliamentarian. I'm a lawyer." On the other hand, ask a parliamentarian a legal question and he will reply, "Ask a lawyer, I'm a parliamentarian."

If your bylaws require you to use Roberts Rules, then, technically, you're supposed to use them. Our atate law (CT) requires us to use Roberts Rules. Many people avoid Roberts Rules like the plague because they think they're stuffy and simply don't understand them. At over 700 pages, they can be quite formidible. Even organizations that try to use them seem to never get them right, including municpal organizations like town and city councils, boards of education, boards of finance, etc. Whenever I read the minitues of our local boards I can always find a misinterpretation or misapplication of Roberts Rules.

I've had over 35 years of experience in applying Roberts Rules, and I no longer feel intimidated by them. If you want to improve your skills in parliamentary procedure, or if you have questions about Roberts Rules (RONR in parliamentarian speak) you might check out the Question and Answer forum at:
http://www.robertsrules.com/interpretations.html
The questions posted in that forum are usually answered by professional parliamentarians, including one of the authors of Roberts Rules.

By the way, Roberts Rules allows for a more casual application for small boards (less than about a dozen members).

Thanks once again for a wealth of information I could not have obtained any other way! Truly appreciate all the valuable resources shared.