Voting Rights

[Guest Guest - DJB]

I was a new member of our (volunteer) club board October last year, who was present when the secretary (& Constitution committee chair) passed (but not unanimously) a motion to present a vast number of Constitution changes at our club’s next general meeting.

At that general meeting I challenged the singular motion (all 37 changes had been bundled together) and I proposed an amendment to the main motion?

I was advised that I was ‘out of order’, even though I correctly followed RONR timing to speak & submit my amendment, and was seconded from the floor. When I asked why I was ‘out of order’ I was advised it was because of our Roberts Rule of Order!

Our constitution states: ‘Roberts Rules of Order shall prevail in the event of any dispute’ and this is the only reference to RONR in our Constitution or our By-Laws.

I have since obtained the RONR 11^th ed, fully updated 2^nd edition- Newly Revised In Brief, and have read the content carefully and cannot see why I would have been deemed ‘Out of Order’ – is there something in the full RONR 11^th ed., that prevents me from making such an amendment, such as that as a board member at time of the change was ‘approved’ for presentation to members, that I cannot amend or vote on the changes at that Spring meeting?

I was NOT part of the working committee who proposed the changes.

[Dan Honemann]

46 minutes ago, Guest Guest - DJB said:

I was a new member of our (volunteer) club board October last year, who was present when the secretary (& Constitution committee chair) passed (but not unanimously) a motion to present a vast number of Constitution changes at our club’s next general meeting.

At that general meeting I challenged the singular motion (all 37 changes had been bundled together) and I proposed an amendment to the main motion?

I was advised that I was ‘out of order’, even though I correctly followed RONR timing to speak & submit my amendment, and was seconded from the floor. When I asked why I was ‘out of order’ I was advised it was because of our Roberts Rule of Order!

Our constitution states: ‘Roberts Rules of Order shall prevail in the event of any dispute’ and this is the only reference to RONR in our Constitution or our By-Laws.

I have since obtained the RONR 11^th ed, fully updated 2^nd edition- Newly Revised In Brief, and have read the content carefully and cannot see why I would have been deemed ‘Out of Order’ – is there something in the full RONR 11^th ed., that prevents me from making such an amendment, such as that as a board member at time of the change was ‘approved’ for presentation to members, that I cannot amend or vote on the changes at that Spring meeting?

I was NOT part of the working committee who proposed the changes.

I don't know what you mean when you say that "I challenged the singular motion (all 37 changes had been bundled together)". What do you mean by this?

You also say that you  "proposed an amendment to the main motion". What, exactly, was the amendment that you proposed?

[Guest]

Rather than going through each change, one at a time and explaining the reason for the change, the 37 changes were rolled up under a single motion to vote on. The motion was at the end of the general meeting and late into the evening. While advance communication went out via email, many members that evening had never seen the changes or where aware this was happening. 

My amendment recognized 5 membership definition changes, and one director position that was to be removed from the board, that were the original basis for the committee being setup, and that those should be accepted, deferring the others for another meeting.

[Richard Brown]

Guest DJB, we need a lot more detail in order to properly help you.  There are several issues here. 

More than likely, the motion incorporating 37 separate bylaw amendments into one motion could have been divided on the demand of a single  member, but that isn't always the case and we need more information.  Even if some could not have been divided on the demand of a single member, they could likely have been divided by a motion to do so which would require a majority vote.

As to your own  proposed amendments, they may or may not have been in order.  For openers, they would be out of order unless they were within the scope of the original proposal.  The example we commonly use is that if your bylaws set your dues at $50 and somebody proposes a bylaw amendment to raise the dues to $75, any amendment to that amendment must keep the dues at somewhere between $50 and $75.  An amendment to make the new dues $80 would be out of order because it exceeds the scope of the original amendment to raise them to only $75.  Likewise with an amendment to decrease the dues to $40 or to abolish them altogether.  It is outside the scope of the original amendment. The final figure has to be between and $50 and $75 unless you start the bylaw amendment process all over again with respect to the dues.

Your proposed amendments would also be out of order if they had nothing to do with the original proposals but addressed different provisions in your bylaws.  Previous notice of any such amendments would probably have to be given.

[Guest]

Thank you, I'm looking to learn with this incident.

Before I get into the details, can I ask if my question on whether I could actually vote or propose an amendment was affected because I was on the board when the original motion to present to the membership was passed? That I have had told by some members is why they thought I was out of order. Knowing in that scenario that I can still debate and present an amendment would be appreciated. 

That aside, the second question would then reside around whether my amendment was in order or not. Hindsight on your response that an amendment to get the motion divided perhaps should have been the better approached for me, but the chair was determined to push his changes through the process and I feel that even that would also have been deemed out of order, as I know that the chair definitely didn't want to go that route.

My amendment was to take 6 recommendations from the original main motion, identified article by article that should be supported and approved, while the others be deemed dropped. If that was insufficient as my amendment (as a substitute amendment), then at least I will have learned from this exchange.

 

[Gary Novosielski]

If the rules in RONR apply:

• Your right to vote is not limited by what offices you may have held in the past.  Members may vote. Period.  
• There should be no need on your part or other members' to guess why you were out of order.  The chair must tell you specifically why.  If the chair says it is "because of Robert's Rules", that is not specific enough by a long shot.  He needs to tell you what rule prevents you from doing what you want.   If you have a copy of RONR 11th Ed. with you, ask him what page and line, and offer to lend him your copy so he can show you.
• If you think the chair is wrong, raise a Point of Order.  See RONR §23 Point of Order.
• A decision of the chair can be Appealed (with a Second) and overruled (with a majority vote_.  See RONR §24 Appeal.
• Even if the chair is right, the rule in question might (with a 2/3 vote) be suspended, allowing you to make the motion anyway.  See RONR §25 Suspend the Rules.
• It appears that by your "amendment", you were not trying to change the language, but just keep some parts and reject the rest.  In this situation, Division of the Question would be appropriate.  That way, you could simply debate in favor of the amendments you support, and debate against the ones you don't.  If the amendments are independent of each other, relating to different topics in the bylaws, you do not need a motion and second, because such motions must be divided on the demand of a single member.    RONR says:

Sometimes a series of independent resolutions relating to completely different subjects is offered by a single main motion in the same way. In the latter case—where the subjects are independent—any resolution in the series must be taken up and voted on separately at the demand of a single member. Such a demand can be made even when another has the floor, at any time until the vote has been taken on adopting the series. A member wishing to make this demand rises and says, for example, “Mr. President, I call for a separate vote on Resolution No. 2.”

 

[Guest]

Thank you Daniel, Richard & Gary for your responses. I will take everything into consideration

Very much appreciate the quick feedback

 

[Guest]

An update

The General Meeting main motion chair (& club secretary) resigned from his club role shortly after the meeting. I have subsequently been advised by a colleague of his motion committee (also a board member of our club) that I was 'out of order' due to a section of the "Roberts Rule of Order" that deals with board decisions, that doesn't allow me to challenge the motion as I did. (I.e. I have to back the board, as the board on which I sit passed the motion to be presented to membership).

I identified that I had read the 11th ed, Newly Revised In Brief and had contacted RONR on this topic, and this was not the case (based on the last message exchange), to which they then backed down and advised they "thought" there was a section covering that off. Seems that there isn't a great understanding of the Robert Rules, and without the knowledge of the rules, the general meeting motion chair used that approach to stop me dead in the water on that occasion. FYI, the main motion never got through as the chair lost control of that general meeting and was not prepared to handle the challenges that followed. After about 20mins of heated discussions (from other members) he moved to accept/reject the main motion, but was not prepared on how to manage the count. Hastily arranged counters could not agree on the numbers, by which time most members had walked out of the meeting. The meeting was adjourned and closed without a conclusion to the motion.

Thank you for your assistance in helping to clarify where I stood. Greatly appreciated.       

[jstackpo]

17 minutes ago, Guest said:

 Seems that there isn't a great understanding of the Robert Rules,...

Welcome to the real world!