Guest Carolyn Posted May 21, 2017 at 09:23 PM Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 at 09:23 PM At a previous meeting of a board on which I serve and of which I am the immediate past president -- and at the meeting in which I was not in attendance, a motion was made, seconded and approved that is in conflict with the bylaws. I'm uncertain how to respond at our next meeting. Do I raise the questions during the approval of the minutes? What is the correct language for raising the question - do I simply state that the motion as approved is out of order or null and void? And then what? Thanks for your help. Carolyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 21, 2017 at 11:06 PM Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 at 11:06 PM If the minutes correctly state what was brought up and passed, you just agree that the minutes are correct - even though the motion was, from what you say, out of order. But then you raise a point of order that the motion in question is indeed out of order, and the chair rules on your point. For details, and what can happen next, see RONR pages 247 and following. (Too much to even summarize here, by me anyway.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted May 21, 2017 at 11:08 PM Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 at 11:08 PM Wait! Just because you see a conflict, that by itself does not necessarily imply that a correction is necessary. For example, if you have a "mission statement" embedded in your bylaws, and your adopted motion seems to be at odds with the mission statement, that conflict is not necessarily one where a fix is necessary. It all depends on the kind of conflict. -- Perhaps your interpretation is wrong? Perhaps the motion is merely variation, and not a true conflict, of the given bylaw rule? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 21, 2017 at 11:15 PM Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 at 11:15 PM 3 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said: Wait! Just because you see a conflict, that by itself does not necessarily imply that a correction is necessary. For example, if you have a "mission statement" embedded in your bylaws, and your adopted motion seems to be at odds with the mission statement, that conflict is not necessarily one where a fix is necessary. It all depends on the kind of conflict. -- Perhaps your interpretation is wrong? Perhaps the motion is merely variation, and not a true conflict, of the given bylaw rule? Wait yourself, Kim! Those are the sorts of questions what would or could get clarified in any discussion about the merits of the point, following an appeal. We, here, have no idea what the point of order, &c., will entail -- anything else is pure guesswork. But a point of order has to be raised first to get things under way. That is the next parliamentary step. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Carolyn Posted May 22, 2017 at 12:14 AM Report Share Posted May 22, 2017 at 12:14 AM The motion adopts a plan that creates an Executive Committee that has a different makeup than the one described in the bylaws, including an officer whose position has not yet been created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 22, 2017 at 01:51 AM Report Share Posted May 22, 2017 at 01:51 AM Sounds out of order to me. Raise a point just as soon as someone acts upon the motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Carolyn Posted May 22, 2017 at 02:34 AM Report Share Posted May 22, 2017 at 02:34 AM Thanks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexis Hunt Posted May 22, 2017 at 06:46 PM Report Share Posted May 22, 2017 at 06:46 PM The point of order can be raised at any time; I would think that after the approval of the minutes containing the motion is a perfectly fine time to do so, especially for someone not present at the meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts