Hollis Select Board Transparency Archive

Dear Mr. McPherson

Thank you for your time in writing and your careful attention to Board procedure. Your concern is valid and deserves to be dealt with upfront.

You are correct that Hollis Policy 66 adopts Robert’s Rules of Order, and that Robert’s Rules does provide that in small boards (generally those with fewer than approximately twelve members) the chair has the rights of a member, including the right to make motions, participate in debate, and vote.

But whether a chair can second a motion while in the chair is not black and white, even under Robert’s Rules. The general principle is that the chair should be impartial in their chairing. Unlike voting (which is often by ballot or roll call), seconding a motion is a visible act that supports the motion and can undercut the appearance of neutrality. For that reason, many practitioners and authorities advise that the chair should not second motions, even where other participation is allowed. Because of that (and out of an abundance of caution being the first meeting of a new board configuration) I made my decision not to 2nd the motion. There was no misunderstanding of procedure or honest mistake made.

That said, your larger point is well-taken. You are right that procedural clarity matters, and that motions should be decided on their merits. I will ensure the Board has a shared, accurate understanding of the chair's rights and limitations under Policy 66 going forward.

Thank you once more for your participation in the Board's proceedings.

Mike Harnois Chair, Selectboard, Hollis

On Jun 18, 2026, at 5:39 AM, [email protected] wrote: Dear Members of the Hollis Select Board, I am writing regarding a procedural issue that arose during last night's meeting. During consideration of a motion made by Dan, a statement was made that the Chair could not second the motion. My understanding is that Hollis Policy 66 adopts Robert's Rules of Order and that, for a five-member board, the Chair retains the rights of a board member, including the ability to make motions, second motions, participate in debate, and vote. This concern extends beyond a simple procedural error. Because the motion failed to receive a second, the statement may have directly affected the outcome of the matter before the Board. Had the Chair understood that a second was permissible, the motion may have received a second and proceeded to further discussion and consideration by the Board. For that reason, I respectfully request that the Board review the applicable provisions of Policy 66 and Robert's Rules of Order and clarify the proper procedure for future meetings. It is important that all members have a clear understanding of the rules governing Board actions so that motions are considered on their merits and are not inadvertently prevented from moving forward due to a misunderstanding of procedure. I hope this was simply an honest mistake. However, because the ruling may have influenced the Board's ability to discuss a properly made motion, I believe clarification is warranted to ensure confidence in the fairness and consistency of the Board's proceedings. Thank you for your time and consideration.