Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

how to challenge "opinion" of the chair


joejk

Recommended Posts

New to RONR and the forum, but having a great time learning everything.

Our board recently had a dispute over the minutes, and the circumstances led some of us to think that those not present at the meeting should recuse themselves. The chair had an interest in these people voting on the minutes as they are often puppet votes for him. We all accepted that those not present at the meeting have a right to vote on the minutes for that meeting. The chair interjected at one point that not only are members not present at the meeting allowed to vote on the minutes, they have a duty to vote on the minutes. I took that as a decision of the chair and tried to appeal it because nothing like that is in the relevant section of RONR. I was told by another member that it was not a decision/ruling, but merely the chair stating his opinion. So my appeal was not considered.

Two questions then:

1. Is the chair correct that members not at the meeting have not only a right but a duty to vote on the minutes? If so, where does it say this in RONR?

2. Can the chair just state an opinion like that without making a ruling? If so, how do you challenge it? The chair's opinion carries a lot of weight and if no one challenges it it's likely to be taken as fact. If he does something like that again, do I just have to wait until it's my turn to speak to give my own opinion? And what if I have no more chances to speak? And if anyone can give references to RONR about the chair stating an opinion that would be fantastic.

Thanks for your help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if he was issuing a ruling or answering a question or giving a parliamentary opinion, or just rambling, but it doesn't matter, no vote is taken on the approval of the minutes.  After any/all corrections are made the chair declares the minutes approved without a motion, and members who were not present at the meeting in question can offer corrections.  RONR (11th ed.), pp. 354-355.  

Edited by George Mervosh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, joejk said:

I understand how the minutes are approved, but do members who were not there have a duty to vote on the minutes or just a right?

And if the chair is rambling and says something factually untrue about procedure, how do you challenge it?

Such members have no duty to vote on proposed corrections to the minutes, just a right to do so.

You don't challenge opinions expressed by the chair. You can appeal from the chair's rulings.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, joejk said:

I understand how the minutes are approved, but do members who were not there have a duty to vote on the minutes or just a right?

Respectfully, you don't or didn't read the earlier response fully.  Once any corrections are dealt with there is no vote so it doesn't matter, but if one is mistakenly taken, it's a right, not an obligation.

5 minutes ago, joejk said:

And if the chair is rambling and says something factually untrue about procedure, how do you challenge it?

If you feel he's giving an incorrect directive or ruling prior to voting on a motion (except for the minutes, because again, there is no vote), you can appeal his decision.

What you should do is raise a point of order that no vote is taken on the final form of the minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the original poster's two posts, I fear that the original poster is not acquainted with the motions:

(a.) point of order

(b.) appeal

(c.) request for information

(d.) parliamentary inquiry

***
I would suggest that the original poster read up on these four kinds of "interruptions", and pick the best motion for the original poster's purpose.

(I don't know which one is best, since the chair's utterances may have been in response to a question, and not a true parliamentary "ruling". -- Or may have been an expression of exasperation. -- Who knows?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone, this is so helpful.

Kim G: Yes, I think one of those other interruption motions might have helped in the situation and I will keep those handy.

George M: Thank you, I see now what you were trying to say in your first post. I was speaking too loosely. What happened was that a correction had been proposed and there was an objection to the correction, at which point we debate and vote as in a regular amendment to a main motion, right? So to be more precise, my question was whether people not at the meeting have a duty or rather just a right to vote on a proposed amendment to the minutes, if it goes to a vote and is not just approved by unanimous consent. This seems to me to have been answered by a number of people, that it is a right but not a duty. Let me know if I'm still not understanding you, the point was very helpful.

As for why he said this, it was clearly to encourage those not at the original meeting to vote on the amendment to the minutes, because he knew if they did vote, they would likely vote against the amendment because they knew that was how he would have wanted them to vote. He has a habit of making things up about procedure and taking advantage of the fact that most of us don't know much about procedure. I can't force my colleagues to fill that lacuna in their knowledge, but I am doing my best to learn what I need to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an interesting point, Shmuel. If you at all care about the details: In this case, it was a matter of whether or not an action had been approved at a meeting. At the meeting in question (to the extent that we were even using RONR we were using small board rules), I do believe he made a good faith effort to get unanimous consent on an action, but everything was so casual--people were actually collecting their coats--and it was brought up so ambiguously, that at least 5 of the 9 people there had no idea that an action had been proposed (let alone approved). The action was carried out, and most of those who did not think we had approved the action did not want it to appear in the minutes that we had (and since there was no vote, the only thing that could go in the minutes was that it was approved by unanimous consent, which implicated us). To make a long political story short, come the next meeting, it looks like the 2 people who were not at the previous meeting are the swing voters. So the chair, who has a lot of sway over these two voters politically, argues that RONR says those people have a duty to vote on an amendment to the minutes (we all assume they will vote his way), and those of us on the other side argue that they have no basis for forming an opinion on what happened during the meeting since they weren't there, and should abstain (in which case we win).

We have since resolved this (nothing went in the minutes about whether the action was passed), but the chair continues to make this point that those not at a meeting have "a duty" or are "encouraged" to participate in minutes approval in every case. At this point he's probably just trying to save face. But I would definitely love to get second and third opinions on this situation. 

Edited by joejk
error fixed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joejk, you said the"action was carried out". Does that mean that the society has already done what the motion proposed to do? If so, I would say it ought to be in the minutes as an act of the assembly or else the officers and/or members who carried out the act could wind up being personally responsible if it cost the society any money. 

As to whether members who were not at the meeting in question "should" vote, I remind you that members always have the right to abstain. It is an individual choice of each member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Joejk, you said the"action was carried out". Does that mean that the society has already done what the motion proposed to do? If so, I would say it ought to be in the minutes as an act of the assembly or else the officers and/or members who carried out the act could wind up being personally responsible if it cost the society any money. 

Richard, I think the issue here is that whether the assembly did, in fact, approve this action is in dispute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...