🔹 What Happened
- A board member made the same motion multiple times in one meeting about taxes.
- Points of Order were raised citing Rule 38 (no repeat motions).
- The chair ruled against those valid Points of Order.
- The result: the rest of the board stopped engaging. One side was silenced.
🔹 What Rules Were Broken
- Rule 38 – No renewal of motions already decided.
- Rule 39 – Repetition to obstruct is dilatory and must be ruled out.
- Rule 47 – The chair must enforce the rules of order.
- Board Policy 006 – Committing to Robert’s Rules means following them.
🔹 Why This Matters
- One side used repetition as a tactic to dominate.
- The chair enabled it, despite clear rules saying it must be stopped.
- This undermines fairness, balance, and public trust.
- It tells the public and the board that rules are optional.
🔹 What Needs to Happen
- Acknowledge that the chair’s ruling was incorrect under Robert’s Rules.
- Commit to consistent enforcement of procedural rules going forward.
- Restore trust by treating all members and all points equally and fairly.
This may not be a legal violation — but it’s a violation of principle, policy, and public trust.
“Silencing through process is still silencing.”
A Message from Seth
At a recent board meeting, a procedural failure occurred that I believe undermines the fairness and transparency our community deserves from this board.
During the meeting, a fellow board member introduced the same motion multiple times in slightly altered language. Under Robert’s Rules of Order, which we have adopted as board policy, this practice is not permitted. Specifically:
- Rule 38 prohibits the renewal of motions that are substantially the same once they’ve been considered.
- Rule 39 identifies repeated motions meant to delay or obstruct business as dilatory — and they must be ruled out of order.
- Rule 47 requires the chair to enforce these rules without favoritism or bias.
Despite Points of Order being raised by myself, the chair acknowledged those concerns and ruled against them, allowing the repeated motions to continue.
As a result, I made the difficult decision to disengage from the discussion. Why? Because continuing would only reward the tactic of repetition as domination. When the same motion is allowed to be made over and over again, it ceases to be debate — it becomes obstruction. And when the chair fails to enforce the rules we all agreed to follow, it sends a message that procedure can be manipulated to silence voices.
I was one of the voices that was silenced — not because I didn’t speak, but because the process no longer protected fair participation. That is not democracy. That is dysfunction.
Why This Matters to You
You may be told this was “just a procedural issue” — but that misses the point entirely. Procedure is the structure that protects public input, board balance, and fair outcomes. When we don’t follow our own rules, we aren’t just breaking tradition — we’re breaking trust.
This isn’t about personalities or politics. It’s about ensuring that every board member — and every community member — has a fair voice in decisions that affect our students, our staff, and our schools.
I am committed to restoring order, fairness, and accountability in our meetings. That starts with speaking openly about when the process is broken — and being willing to fix it.
If you have any questions or concerns about what occurred, I welcome you to reach out directly.
—
Seth Cornman
Lower Frankford School Board Director for Big Spring School District
