Points of order & new bylaws

[Guest Harper]

My organization passed a series of new bylaws at a recent general meeting. They were not proposed by the board but by way of a member referendum - and approved overwhelmingly.

Should a board member call a 'point of order' at the start of the next board meeting? Then should the ruling be made by the parliamentarian? And does the point of order jump the queue with respect to other items on the board meeting agenda?

Thank you.

Harper

 

[Dan Honemann]

4 minutes ago, Guest Harper said:

My organization passed a series of new bylaws at a recent general meeting. They were not proposed by the board but by way of a member referendum - and approved overwhelmingly.

Should a board member call a 'point of order' at the start of the next board meeting? Then should the ruling be made by the parliamentarian? And does the point of order jump the queue with respect to other items on the board meeting agenda?

Thank you.

Harper

 

What would the board member be raising a point of order about?

Parliamentarian's don't rule on points of order. The presiding officer does.

[Guest Harer]

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

What would the board member be raising a point of order about?

Parliamentarian's don't rule on points of order. The presiding officer does.

The bylaws concern who may vote on certain issues (we have two classes of members) and how certain funds may be dispersed. There are items on the agenda that would be affected by the new bylaws.

Harper

[Dan Honemann]

23 minutes ago, Guest Harer said:

The bylaws concern who may vote on certain issues (we have two classes of members) and how certain funds may be dispersed. There are items on the agenda that would be affected by the new bylaws.

Harper

Well, unless and until something is done or is attempted to be done in violation of the now existing rules, there will be nothing to raise a point of order about.

[Richard Brown]

Guest Harper, you haven't yet told us what rules were violated and whether these rules are contained in the bylaws . We need more information.  Please quote the pertinent rule(s) verbatim and tell us exactly how you think those rules were violated.

Don't post a link to your full bylaws. Just quote what provisions you think have been violated.

Edited to add: or be more precise as to what your question is. I haven't a clue.

Edited August 11, 2017 at 03:09 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Guest harper]

<<unless and until something is done or is attempted to be done in violation of the now existing rules, there will be nothing to raise a point of order about.>>

 

I understand. We've changed our membership approval procedures to allow only professional board members to vote to approve new professional club members. Someone will need to raise either a 'point of order'. Or would 'point of information' be more appropriate?

Thank you.

Harper

 

 

[Guest harper]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Guest Harper, you haven't yet told us what rules were violated and whether these rules are contained in the bylaws . We need more information.  Please quote the pertinent rule(s) verbatim and tell us exactly how you think those rules were violated.

Don't post a link to your full bylaws. Just quote what provisions you think have been violated.

Edited to add: or be more precise as to what your question is. I haven't a clue.

Dear Mr. Brown,

I didn't check before posting my response to Mr. Honemann. There are several bylaw amendments the organization approved at the most recent general meeting. One, which is on every board meeting agenda dating back more than half a century, is the approval of new members and reinstatement of former members.

Our board currently is comprised of both professional and social members. One of the new bylaws stipulates that only professional members on the board may vote to approve professional members wishing to join or be reinstated to the club. Both professional and non-professional members may vote to approve social members.

I realized after reading Mr. Honemann's response that perhaps the correct question is for a board member to raise a point of information with regard to the new/reinstated members' list since no violation has been yet committed.

So, to correct my question: Should a board member raise of point of information (not a point of order)?

And I presume that the presiding officer would make the ruling?

Thank you and apologies.

Harper

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

If there is any doubt about who it is who will be entitled to vote when the time comes to approve professional members wishing to join or be reinstated to your club, a member can ask the presiding officer this question (for details, see the discussion of "Parliamentary Inquiry" in RONR, 11th ed., pp. 293-294).

[Guest harper]

Thank you. Enjoy your weekend.

Harper

[Gary Novosielski]

One point that should be understood, however, is that a Parliamentary Inquiry addressed to the chair, while it may be informative, is merely the chair's opinion on an as-yet hypothetical situation.  It is not a ruling, and therefore cannot be appealed.

If members of the assembly disagree with the chair's response to a Parliamentary Inquiry, they need to wait until the chair puts that opinion into practice by a ruling (perhaps as the result of a Point of Order), and at that point raise an Appeal to what they consider an adverse ruling by the chair.