All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. Nonetheless, I think there are limits to what may be placed in a motion to censure without using formal disciplinary procedures. The following is an excerpt from what RONR has to say about a resolution to appoint an investigative committee. "For the protection of parties who may be innocent, the first resolution should avoid details as much as possible. An individual member may not prefer charges, even if that member has proof of an officer's or member's wrongdoing. If a member introduces a resolution preferring charges unsupported by an investigating committee's recommendation, the chair must rule the resolution out of order, informing the member that it would instead be in order to move the appointment of such a committee (by a resolution, as in the example above). A resolution is improper if it implies the truth of specific rumors or contains insinuations unfavorable to an officer or member, even one who is to be accused. It is out of order, for example, for a resolution to begin, "Whereas, It seems probable that the treasurer has engaged in graft, . . ." At the first mention of the word "graft" in such a case, the chair must instantly call to order the member attempting to move the resolution." (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 657-658) Based on this, I would assume that a resolution to censure which began in a similar manner would also be out of order.
  3. Today
  4. Well, post #2 isn't very helpful since he apparently is a member, but yeah
  5. The Bylaws have a rule that dues have to be paid by a Certain date by the Executive committee officers and if not paid they lose the Office they hold and voting rights. Several members have not paid. It appears that they want to ignore this bylaw and change it so it applies retro-active, that you do have to pay. Is this possible? From my perspective they have no vote per the Bylaws. Thanks for any help.
  6. Thank you everyone...I have a meeting tonight and will use all information that you have provided. This Q&A Forum has been a tremendous help...much appreciated!
  7. And the VP, if a member, would also have the right to vote. The lawyer, unless also a member, would not.
  8. ...and if the chair does not call him to order, any member can and should raise a point of order. Try this: You (without waiting to be recognized): Point of Order! Chair: State your point. You: I raise a point of order that the committee is not in order. The member who had the floor has been repeatedly interrupted.
  9. It would give them the authority to provide procedures and prescribe the content of the bylaws, but unless they had already issued those procedures or prescribed those requirements, that wouldn't affect your current situation. Passing new procedures or new requirements for the bylaws would not be in effect until they had actually issued them. The EC would, in effect, be hoist upon their own ex post facto petard.
  10. There is a huge difference between people who happen to be members of the EC giving their opinion on things, and the EC adopting a motion at a regular or properly called meeting at which a quorum was present, or a ruling issued at such a meeting. But in either case, the person or body must have the power to do what they seek to do. In the bylaws amendment process the EC appears to have a role, but one limited to approving of the adopted amendment (or not) presumably based upon its compliance with rules of the parent organization. Unless that or some other part of the bylaws gives them some continuing review power, they don't have it. Whether the bylaws provision on term length applies to the act of electing officers, or to the act of assuming office, is a question that can only be answered by carefully reading the language regarding terms of office. Unless there is some particular reference to elections that would support the committee chairman's interpretation, the standard interpretation, in my view, would be that such a change would not apply to any unexpired terms currently in progress, but would apply once those terms have expired. Arguments that it should skip a term, or two, or three, become progressively weaker.
  11. Mr. Honemann, thank you for responding. There is this statement in our state bylaws: #Section 6. The Georgia _Association shall provide appropriate procedures for the association of local units within Georgia and prescribe the form and content of the bylaws or other articles of association of such local units. Would this give them the authority? I will definitely take the information next steps you have provided our Council. Thank you!
  12. This was the response from the President-Elect on the State Executive Committee: Thank you for your email. You are correct in your analysis. The bylaw change did not become effective until it was approved and cannot be made retroactive. Since the election took place at the same meeting and the change was not in effect, those elected must abide by the bylaws that were in place when the election occurred. It does not matter that the changes were approved before the end of the year; that just means they are in effect for any future elections. Thank you for your clarity and your solid understanding of both our. byaws and Robert's Rules. My question is now: When would a ruling have happened? Is not there a process that would make a ruling necessary, which would include informing us that such an action would have been transpiring?
  13. I concur completely with the comments above by Dr. Stackpole, Mr. Novosielski and Mr. Honemann (who is one of the authors of the 9th, 10th and 11th editions of RONR). I especially wonder where the bylaws committee chairman gets his claimed authority to arbitrarily make "rulings" regarding your bylaws. As others have stated, I would want to see whatever rule he is relying on that gives him that authority. Lacking such a rule, and in the absence of a contrary provision in your bylaws, your local "unit" has the right, per RONR, to interpret its own bylaws. However, in your latest post, you made a reference to the executive committee saying the bylaw amendment cannot be retroactive. This may be a critical point: exactly who (what people and what boards or committees) have told you that the bylaw amendment cannot apply to your newly elected officers? It is one thing for the appropriate board or committee, as official board or committee action, to make a ruling and quite a different thing for one person to be making those pronouncements even if it is the chairman. We need to know exactly who is telling you what and whether it is based on an actual board or committee decision or if it is just that person's individual opinion. BTW , it is undisputed that your bylaw amendments don't take effect until approved by the appropriate state committee. However that is not the issue. Regardless of when a bylaw amendment takes effect, per RONR, once it becomes effective, it absolutely applies to officers then in office and can affect their duties and terms of office. Re-read the provision from RONR that I quoted and highlighted in a previous post. I think that is the point your bylaws chair is missing. Edited to add: Mr. Honemann made his post immediately above while I was typing this post. I concur with those comments, too.
  14. Guest Guest, assuming that nothing in your rules gives some entity other than your membership's assembly the authority to issue definitive rulings concerning the question you have raised, it seems to me that what will happen is something such as this: At your membership meeting next year when the election of officers would ordinarily occur, a point of order will be raised that an election should or should not be held, depending on what happens (or doesn't happen) at that time, the chair will rule on the point of order, an appeal will be taken from the ruling of the chair, and the question will then be resolved by your membership. Or maybe there will be an occasion to properly raise a point of order concerning the matter prior to that time, for example if a nominating committee is to be created. But in any event, it's your membership's assembly that will ultimately decide this question.
  15. Well if he's an ex-officio member as FAQ#2 notes (thanks Mr. Huynh) he has every right to be there.....but not to take over the meeting. If he's behaving improperly then the Chair should call him to order and the committee should report his actions back to the town's council.
  16. Here is what our bylaws read: Section 6. Officers shall assume their official duties following the close of the school year and serve for a term of 1 year(s) or until their successor is elected. We voted to amend that statement to 2 years, and at the same meeting we elected officers for the next term to begin after the close of the school year. We submitted to the state (per the provisions in our bylaws) and received approval on May 19, which is when the amendment went into effect for the next term of office. The bylaws chair and the Executive Committee is saying that the amendment cannot be retroacted to the officers elected prior to the approval of the amendment, even though their elected term of office is after the approval was received. Mr. Novosielski, I do not know how much clearer you could have been stated this. I will take this back to them and see what I get in response. (I really appreciate all of you chiming in on this. It has been such a drag!) Roberts Rules - bylaws.pdf
  17. FAQ #2 may be of use.
  18. Thank you very much. The current situation is the moderator is considered (at the town's finance committee meetings) ex-officio. The problem is the moderator is taking over meetings of the finance committee; when committee members try to speak, he's inclined to run over other's input. I've voiced my displeasure to the Chairperson and it would be my understanding that it is up to the Chair to bring the meeting back to order. But your answer is clear as to the moderator's position at the finance meeting. If you have any further advice, I loved to hear. Once again, thank you.
  19. The power to interpret bylaws is not reserved to one person, but to the assembly that has the power to adopt them in the first place. The language of your bylaws would, whatever it means, supersede the language in RONR. But the opinion of the bylaws chair on the meaning is just that, one person's opinion. Even so, the language is not particularly ambiguous. Apparently, the bylaws do not become effective until approval is received from the higher authority. That was apparently May 19. Therefore the new bylaws would affect anyone taking office on or after May 19th. June 1st is after May 19th. It seems to me that once approval has been received, it is up to the assembly that adopted the bylaws to interpret them thereafter. They presumably knew what their intentions were in adopting it. I would ask to see, in writing, some rule that gives the chair of the bylaws committee the unilateral power to interpret your local bylaws, once the approval process is complete. Presuming that the local assembly had the right to change the terms of office in the first place, which is supported by the fact that the change was approved, the involvement of the GEC appears to be over. If there is language that contradicts that, let someone produce it. If there is some review process in place, fine, but it sounds as if the bylaws chair has decreed that he is the self-appointed supreme court. I don't think it's workable to have the state bylaws committee chair get involved every time some bit of language in the local bylaws becomes a matter of interpretation. And I'd need to see the bylaws language that supports any opinion to the contrary. (If I were a member, which I am not.)
  20. Although not an exact quote, I think this is taken from RONR, 11th ed., page 14, lines 18-22.
  21. I would be confused, too. Heck, I am confused by the reply you got; Ask the bylaws chair to quote exactly the National Bylaw provision(s) that give him the authority to do what he says he can do. In particular the one that gives him authority to review and approve/disapprove chapter bylaw amendments. BTW, his reference to "Section 2, line 18" bears no relationship to RONR. What is he quoting?
  22. Just curious: How do you define "attendance", and the "quorum", for your electronic meetings where, presumably, nobody is actually "present" in the same room together -- cf p. 21 & 345 of RONR.
  23. if the town moderator is not a member of the committee (ex-officio or otherwise), they have no rights at all with reference to the committee's proceedings and can be excluded from attending if the committee so chooses. "During actual deliberations of the committee, only committee members have the right to be present. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 501 I'm not sure I understand exactly what the problem is, but if they aren't a committee member, the solution is clear enough.
  24. So this is the reply I received from the bylaws chair, when I sent the information from Mr. Brown's response. I'm still confused because neither council, state, nor National bylaws speak to the effective date of the term of office and it seems to ultimately fall under the interpretation of this current bylaws chair. Response: Citing Roberts Rules as the authority, Section 2, line 18 states "the bylaws comprise the highest body of rules in societies as normally established today. Such an instrument supercedes all other rules of the society, except the corporate charter, if there is one". As contained in the council (the association that voted on the amendment change) bylaws: #ARTICLE XIX: PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITYThe rules contained in the current edition ofRobert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern this council and in all cases in which they are applicable and in which they are not in conflict with these bylaws, the National Bylaws, the Georgia bylaws, or the articles of incorporation. ARTICLE XX: AMENDMENTS Section 1. These bylaws may be amended at any regular general membership meeting of this council with the following provisions: (a. - c.) and d. The amendment(s) shall become effective upon receipt of approval from the Georgia Executive Committee. Because local units and councils are organized and chartered under the authority of the state association, the bylaws contain the provision that they must be approved by the state association before they become effective. The amendment does not go into effect immediately, as noted in RONR because it is conflict with the bylaws, the highest body of rule.
  25. I am an appointed member of the town finance committee of which the town moderator is always (his or her choice) in attendance. What is the scope of the moderators purpose and when is the moderator considered out-of-order or a conflict-of-interest during the Finance Committee meeting.
  26. At the next meeting, all members in attendance may vote.
  27. No.
  1. Load more activity