I'm so confused!

[grayduck]

Me again. My situation is quite strange. Most of you know me already. As a summary, I am the Motions and Elections Officer (MEO) for my Association. During meetings, I assume the position of Chair during the motions section. My duties in the constitution are "to receive motions (written) that are a) constitutional" (also moved, seconded, by a certain date, etc.) then post them to our online Forum, oversee discussion at a meeting and then oversee the online vote. There is no voting at meetings, i.e. there is NO opportunity for procedures such as amending motions, laying on a table, postponing, etc. None. The motions get stated by me online and then, after pointless discussion at a meeting, go straight to all the 500+ members for an online vote. Crazy. I have asked many questions and have gotten many great answers here, thank you all. At one point, I thought I had too much power that was given to me by the constitution and membership, got carried away and then got corrected and backed off, thinking I was just a placeholder. Now I have been reminded by my Executive that I do have a lot of power, as I am the gatekeeper to what goes forward to the whole membership directly for an online vote. Again, crazy. A lot of responsibility.

 

Several individuals are trying to abuse this strange situation by submitting very subjective, vague and indefensible motions that they insist I must then pass forward for the whole 500+ membership to see and vote on, again, with no possibility to modify. These individuals have a clear objective of basically creating chaos because they will afterwards be able to use this vague language to do whatever they want, including finding any grounds to remove members of the executive. I think I have been told here that I cannot interfere with this process, hold things up, demand modifications, etc. But I am very uncomfortable with the whole setup. I wish we had normal procedures. Here a current motion, 

 

Grounds for Removal: An Executive Officer may be removed from office for any one of the following reasons if the Executive or the membership have  or received information which leads them to believe that the Executive Officer: has neglected his/her duties to the extent that the proper operation of the Association is being negatively affected; has engaged in misrepresentation of funds; has undertaken activities inconsistent with the principles and policies of ###; etc.... Any Executive Officer removed from his/her position on the Executive Committee shall be banned from holding any executive position on the Executive Committee or from any appointment by the Executive Committee for a period of no less than three (3) years from the date of removal.

 

This is, by the way, one of the tamer motions. The words in blue are the ones of concern. How does one defend "led them to believe"? Who determines if the association is "being negatively affected"? In the past, when our organization had standard meetings, they would argue and take great care over the language. But now this is supposed to go straight up for a vote. What am I supposed to do? It's tearing our organization apart. Can I extend my duty to "receive motions that are constitutional" to mean require having appropriate, clear, objective language? Can I call a motion such as above out of order because of its subjective/vague language? How do real lawyers and parliamentarians assure proper, legal wording? What are the rules? Am I getting too riled up? I am so lost. No matter what I do, they will come after me and say it is not my responsibility to do any of this. They may be right. But... They'll turn and try to have me removed (Executive appointed - majority will support whatever I do), which would be fine: I could return to a normal quite life. But these guys are bullies abusing a very strange system.... I'm so confused.

 

I can of course let any and all of this through for the membership to vote on, (some of you will probably say I have to, and maybe I should just give up my struggle) and hope they vote right, but these guys have built a small ferocious base of around 20+ that will most certainly vote online (majority of required 10% of membership voting). They're few, loud, and angry.

 

Maybe our whole board should just resign and let these bozos run the show.

 

Sorry if my writing is garbled and/or repetitive. I'm supposed to state these motions in two days, my brain hurts and it's the middle of the night.

 

[grayduck]

By the way, I have tried to very kindly chat with these guys and suggest having a dialogue, but these ones flat out refuse. Several others have kindly cooperated with other motions. Other kind ones have worked with me on other stuff as a result of some of your other recommendations. I also took care of the whole election thing and delicately solved the whole issue with removing that "corrupt" executive (for the time being). You guys have been a lot of help. It's just now down to these last couple motions and these couple difficult people that I have no idea how to handle, or if I should.

 

They chased the last two MEOs away!

[Josh Martin]

How does one defend "led them to believe"?

Beats me.

Who determines if the association is "being negatively affected"?

Well, it would be helpful if the motion clarified which body actually votes on the removal, since that would also be the body which would determine these sorts of questions. When the rule is silent, I would assume that such power would rest with the association itself.

In the past, when our organization had standard meetings, they would argue and take great care over the language. But now this is supposed to go straight up for a vote. What am I supposed to do? It's tearing our organization apart. Can I extend my duty to "receive motions that are constitutional" to mean require having appropriate, clear, objective language? Can I call a motion such as above out of order because of its subjective/vague language?

The closest analogue to your position in RONR is that of the presiding officer. The presiding officer cannot declare a motion out of order on the grounds that the language in the motion is subjective or vague, assuming the motion is otherwise in order. The usual solution would be that the assembly would either vote the vague motion down or amend it (although the latter is sadly not an option in your society).

Your bylaws might grant additional authority upon you (it would appear that at least some people in the society think they do), and it will be up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation. Personally, I don't think the language "receive motions that are constitutional" can reasonably be interpreted to mean that you have the authority to refuse to receive a motion which is vague and subjective, but is in order.

Lastly, is this motion being presented as an amendment to the society's bylaws? If it is not, then it is certainly out of order. Only a rule in the bylaws is sufficient to remove someone from office.

How do real lawyers and parliamentarians assure proper, legal wording?

I can't speak for lawyers, but parliamentarians do not (and cannot) assure anything. A parliamentarian has even less power than you do. The role of a parliamentarian is to advise the chair, and if he believes that a motion is out of order, he would advise the chair as much and the chair (hopefully) would rule the motion out of order.

The fact that a motion is subjective or vague, in and of itself, does not make a motion out order. If a motion was unclear, the parliamentarian and/or the chair might work with the member to assist in that (most members want their motions to be clear). Failing that, it will be up to the assembly to amend the motion or vote it down.

Am I getting too riled up?

Probably. If the motion is as bad as you say, then surely the membership will vote it down, right? Have a little faith in them.

[Guest Curious]

No motion that is in conflict with the bylaws is in order. When you are in the chair, you can rule a motion out of order when it's offered. If the members disagree, they can appeal and decide for themselves. This is the normal way of doing business in Robert's. If your bylaws mandate that you present submitted motions for discussion and conduct a vote, then your hands are tied; nothing in Robert's will give you the right to go against the bylaws and turn down motions that you don't like.

[Gary Novosielski]

This whole situation deviates so acutely from RONR and common parliamentary law, that it's difficult even to formulate an opinion on what ought to happen.   

 

Do your bylaws actually support the notion that the membership has no power to amend, refer, or postpone a motion that is properly before them?  And if these matters are (as they seem to be) in the nature of rules of order, what prevents the membership from suspending them (by a 2/3 vote) and doing as they see fit?  Or are they fine with this state of affairs?

[Richard Brown]

Like Gary (and possibly some others), I have concerns that the bylaws are not being properly interpreted when it comes to the power of the membership, the board(s), and the "Motions and Elections Officer".   This organization seems to have some very strange procedures.  All of what we have been told is indeed far afield from RONR and what we normally see.  I think I understand why the last two MEO's were "chased away".... or fled voluntarily.

 

I am beginning to think that the problems being described are beyond the scope of this forum and our ability to deal with them. The services of a professional parliamentarian might be in order.  Such a person can study the bylaws and devote more time to the situation than we can on this forum.

 

btw, the motion described in post # 1 concerns me, too, both as to the highlighted provisions and a couple of other aspects.

 

For a referral, Shlinder might contact either or both the NAP and the AIP:

 

National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP)
213 South Main St.
Independence, MO  64050-3850
Phone: 888-627-2929
e-mail: hq@NAP2.org  
www.parliamentarians.org

American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP)
618 Church Street, Ste 220
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: 888-664-0428
e-mail: aip@aipparl.org
www.aipparl.org

[Rev Ed]

I think I have the easy solution:  amend the By-laws to remove your position and to simply follow RONR.  Much easier.  Also, if the organization does not want members making unannounced motions at a meeting, then the organization could add a requirement in the By-laws that all motions are to be submitted to the Secretary by a certain date prior to the meeting.

[Josh Martin]

Do your bylaws actually support the notion that the membership has no power to amend, refer, or postpone a motion that is properly before them? And if these matters are (as they seem to be) in the nature of rules of order, what prevents the membership from suspending them (by a 2/3 vote) and doing as they see fit? Or are they fine with this state of affairs?

Since we are told that the bylaws provide that the motions are voted on by the membership as a whole, it is not at all clear to me that the motions discussed at the society's meetings are, in fact, properly before the assembly.

I think I have the easy solution: amend the By-laws to remove your position and to simply follow RONR. Much easier.

Well, to be clear, I think the problem is that the organization conducts the bulk of its business by absentee voting, not the existence of the Motions and Elections Officer. Removing this officer (which is currently all that is in place to review the motions submitted to the membership) would seem to make things even worse.

Also, if the organization does not want members making unannounced motions at a meeting, then the organization could add a requirement in the By-laws that all motions are to be submitted to the Secretary by a certain date prior to the meeting.

This is correct, but I don't understand what this has to do with the situation presented in this thread, since the motions in question clearly have been submitted well in advance of the meeting (albeit to the Motions and Elections Officer, not the Secretary).

[grayduck]

I completely agree with Edgar that this constitution needs a good look-over and review, because I suspect, as Josh said, that the current system does not put motions properly before the assembly, i.e. no room to amend, debate, defer, table, remove, etc. I am just having a very difficult time trying to proceed until that can be done, getting assailed from all sides, and struggling quite a bit with it all.

[Larry Cisar]

I completely agree with Edgar that this constitution needs a good look-over and review, because I suspect, as Josh said, that the current system does not put motions properly before the assembly, i.e. no room to amend, debate, defer, table, remove, etc. I am just having a very difficult time trying to proceed until that can be done, getting assailed from all sides, and struggling quite a bit with it all.

How about requiring that they prove their motion is in order before you will put it before the assembly? Make them do the work.

[grayduck]

Larry, that would be wonderful. But they would never cooperate with that. I got a couple more angry emails today and almost threw in the towel. Argh.

[Dan Honemann]

I simply do not understand how you can expect anything in Robert's Rules of Order, and hence any advice which can be offered here in this forum, to be of any real assistance to you when your problems all seem to stem from rules which your organization has adopted for the governance of its own proceedings, and not rules found in RONR. 

 

As a wise man once said here in this forum, you can't seek shelter under the roof you're tearing down.

[grayduck]

Thank you, Daniel. This is exactly why I'm so confused and have been learning and have been trying to digest. I think the best suggestion I have had so far was to suspend the rules (motions not properly presented before the assembly), do away with my position, and get back to a RONR based constitution. But even that would need to be a motion to go to an online vote! Hahaha. Until then, I still have the clamour around me.

[Josh Martin]

Thank you, Daniel. This is exactly why I'm so confused and have been learning and have been trying to digest. I think the best suggestion I have had so far was to suspend the rules (motions not properly presented before the assembly), do away with my position, and get back to a RONR based constitution. But even that would need to be a motion to go to an online vote! Hahaha. Until then, I still have the clamour around me.

I don't think that all of the rules in question can be suspended. The bylaws could be amended so that motions are actually considered at a meeting, but it is correct that this motion would need to be voted on under the rules which are currently in place.