Roberts Rules of Order

Our CC&R's require that our board meetings be conducted under Roberts Rules of Order. According to Roberts, if a board member wants to have a vote on a motion and another wants to continue discussion, then a two-thirds vote is required to end discussion so that the motion itself can then be voted on. We have a board of five. So, it would take four votes to force an end to discussion and then vote on the motion at hand.

Am I understanding Roberts correctly? Could two members of our board of five "filibuster" a motion to death just like the politicians do in Washington?

Your explanation is my understanding too, Bruce. But it hasn't been an issue on our Board.

I see how this could be a real problem, as Richard presents it. What can a Board of five (say) do if two directors want to prevent the matter from coming to a vote and keep yammering away about it? I can see how this could be done out of spite, personal animosity, etc.

Can the Board make a rule that over rides Robert's? Or, because I still don't know it very well, can the board, limit any director's remarks to, say 10 minutes (or better yet, three) and limit each director from speaking more than twice on each motion? Or some such?

Yes. The board can make any rule it wants.

If the board is obligated to follow Roberts Rules, a motion can be made to suspend Roberts, or any provision thereof, which requires (alas) a 2/3 affirmative vote to pass, unless the bylaws or state law prohibits them from suspending Roberts.

The board can also vote to limit debate to a specific duration, or a specified number of times. However, since this is a change in the rules, it also requires a 2/3 vote to pass. If this is going to be done, it's best to do it at the beginning of each meeting, or for a specified period of time (as at the beginning of the "board year" for the duration of the year).

Richard,

As a community association attorney, I have to note that association laws vary greatly from state to state based on different state statutes in addition to the written documents of the association (such as the Declaration/Covenants or Bylaws). For instance, a number of states have statutes that associations must follow the latest edition of "Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised." In others, there is no statute, but the governing documents prescribe Robert’s. In others, Robert’s is somewhat followed because it seems like a good idea. Obviously, the significance of Robert’s would vary between these associations!

With that said, if your association is supposed to and is trying to follow Robert’s, a couple of thoughts:

* Moving the Previous Question is the correct motion for closing debate. It must be made by a member recognized by the Chair, needs a second (if your board requires seconds), and a two-thirds vote. So yes, if all five members of a board are present and voting, that would be four members.

* Filibusters are a legislative concept and only allowed if permitted by special rules. Robert’s has no such rule and limits formal debate to 10 minutes per speaker. No one can speak a second time to a motion so long as someone who has not spoken wishes to speak.

* Once a member speaks a second time to a motion, they are done for the day as to that specific motion.

The reason I’ve used terms like “formal” procedure or “requiring seconds” is that boards are supposed to operate much less formally than annual meetings. For examples of informal board procedure, you may wish to check out my article at:
http://www.jimslaughter.com/Board-Procedures-Versus-a-Membership-Meeting-or-Convention.cfm

In hopes it may be of use, I'm attaching a Parliamentary Motions Guide to the latest Robert's (but again, this chart is more focused on formal procedure at larger meetings). There are also many free charts and articles on Robert’s and meeting procedure at my Website, www.jimslaughter.com.

Jim Slaughter
Author, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Parliamentary Procedure Fast-Track" and "Notes & Comments on Robert's Rules, Fourth Edition"

Thanks for the welcome!

I agree that boards should be much less formal (as does Robert's). The reason I mentioned the speaking rules and motion to close debate was the original poster asked about specific motions and their use.

Board problems are most often solved through good leadership, rather than any particular parliamentary maneuver. In "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Parliamentary Procedure Fast-Track" (which focuses more on board procedure and issues), I suggest some of the following whether a meeting is procedurally formal or informal:
manage discussion by asking for speakers who have not spoken, considering a total debate time for certain issues, and alternating pro and con speakers;
encourage participation from less active members;
prevent any member from monopolizing the conversation; and
manage conflict by stopping members from getting into a back-and-forth discussion or addressing each other disrespectfully.

Just some thoughts.

With regards to options available to opponents of a proposal, there are several (so long as the board is being somewhat formal--which is not necessary for smaller boards--and also follows Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th Edition)), including:
(1) Speak against the proposal and vote against the proposal
(2) Move the Previous Question (not debatable, 2/3's vote) to close debate and then vote against the proposal
(3) Move to Refer (debatable, majority vote) the proposal to a committee for further study
(4) Move to Postpone (debatable, majority vote) the proposal to the next board meeting

The motion to Table isn't likely available or of much help, in that it only temporarily lays a question aside when something else of immediate urgency has arisen (and that the body will go back to once the urgent matter is resolved). Robert's even says that the motion to Lay on the Table "should be ruled out of order if the evident intent is to kill or avoid dealing with a measure."

You might also be interested in the "Parliamentary Strategy Handout" at http://www.jimslaughter.com/handouts.cfm

Watch this You Tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQE7kKC6Kt0

A fair discussion though the women is out of her league.

Alot of the stuff on Wikipedia is mine....bet you can guess which (check out my passage on Racial deed restrictions, one of my favorites)....what a nightmare it was though!

Shills for the industry would constantly come along and delete my stuff and put in utter nonsense.