Removal of Motion

[Andrew002]

Richard, we've  adopted motions in the same meeting however these motions are in support of financial contributions to a cause. Motions that change the fundamental function of how the assembly are always deferred to the following meeting. 

[jstackpo]

Who decides whether a change is "fundamental"? 

 

 

 

[Andrew002]

The board of course

[jstackpo]

Do your bylaws vest the power to the board to decide what the members will or will not consider in any particular meeting?   Suppose you, the membership contend that a particular issue should be dealt with right now, when the "board"  (which isn't meeting during the membership meeting at all)  says otherwise.  What then?

[Josh Martin]

8 hours ago, Andrew002 said:

Richard, we've  adopted motions in the same meeting however these motions are in support of financial contributions to a cause. Motions that change the fundamental function of how the assembly are always deferred to the following meeting. 

 

3 hours ago, Andrew002 said:

The board of course

Do you actually have a rule which provides for these things?

Also, what is meant by a “fundamental function?” What was this motion about, for instance?

Edited April 23, 2018 at 01:17 AM by Josh Martin

[Andrew002]

The chair/president of our local has considerable power. For instance, a member who resigned from the union to assume a new position with management was not content in his new post. Within the week the member approached the  president asking for his old job back...president said yes. The presidents action contravened our constitution & bylaws and circumvented 265 senior positions. It was not his decision to make and should have been voted on by the assembly...the board members do not feel accountable to the assembly/members.

My views on fundamental function has to do with amending local bylaws that change the fabric of the current archaic laws and bring us into the 21st century.

[Joshua Katz]

I think all of us have been trying to say that dictatorial violations of the rules will continue until the assembly stands up and says to cut it out.

[Andrew002]

Its a complicated situation, the membership have stepped forward many times but are thwarted by our international president and protected by the constitution and bylaws. 

[Joshua Katz]

Who is protected by the constitution and bylaws, and how?  It sounds like your membership is.  If the problem is that people simple don't care about the rules, but your membership does care, there are still options, such as tossing your officers out of office and getting officers who do care.  If there's a thorough-going lack of concern for the rules, though, all that is left is probably legal action or resigning yourself to not solving the problem - or convincing people that it matters.

Edited to add:  Given the apparent size of this organization, the power it wields, and the importance of the issues at stake, you might consider consulting a professional parliamentarian and/or attorney.  The National Association of Parliamentarians and the American Institute of Parliamentarians can provide referrals for professional parliamentarians.

Edited April 23, 2018 at 10:19 PM by Joshua Katz

[Andrew002]

The membership can vote on tossing the board however the finial decision remains with the international president. It includes a through investigation... history tells us he never releases a current president or board member...has to be done through election.

[Joshua Katz]

Well, if the international president refuses to follow the rules, what about tossing him?  Or, for a less dramatic version of "toss," just voting them out at the next election?

[Josh Martin]

36 minutes ago, Andrew002 said:

My views on fundamental function has to do with amending local bylaws that change the fabric of the current archaic laws and bring us into the 21st century.

Motions amending the bylaws generally do require previous notice, and the specifics for what notice is required should be specified in the bylaws.

36 minutes ago, Andrew002 said:

The chair/president of our local has considerable power. For instance, a member who resigned from the union to assume a new position with management was not content in his new post. Within the week the member approached the  president asking for his old job back...president said yes. The presidents action contravened our constitution & bylaws and circumvented 265 senior positions. It was not his decision to make and should have been voted on by the assembly...the board members do not feel accountable to the assembly/members.

I don’t think this answers my previous questions (if anything, it seems to raise new questions), but I will attempt to provide information covering all the bases.

• Motions do not require previous notice unless so required by RONR or the organization’s rules.
• Neither the board nor the President has the authority to decide that notice is required for a motion unless that authority is granted by the organization’s rules.
• The fact that the motion maker or the person providing notice is not present does not prevent the assembly from considering a motion.
• The board only has the authority granted by the organization’s rules or applicable law.
• The President only has the authority granted by the organization’s rules or applicable law.
• Neither the President, the board, nor the society itself has the authority to violate the bylaws.
• Main motions which conflict with the bylaws are null and void.
• Violating the society’s orders or rules is grounds for disciplinary action.

23 minutes ago, Andrew002 said:

Its a complicated situation, the membership have stepped forward many times but are thwarted by our international president and protected by the constitution and bylaws. 

In such a case, the society may benefit from consulting a professional parliamentarian in your area, who can review your governing documents in their entirety and assist in interpretation. Both the National Association of Parliamentarians and the American Institute of Parliamentarians provide referrals.

11 minutes ago, Andrew002 said:

The membership can vote on tossing the board however the finial decision remains with the international president. It includes a through investigation... history tells us he never releases a current president or board member...has to be done through election.

This seems like a very unusual structure, but if that is what the organization’s bylaws provide, you’re stuck with it.

In any event, however, you yourself have suggested the obvious solution - elect new officers when the time comes.

10 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Well, if the international president refuses to follow the rules, what about tossing him?

I imagine that it is difficult as a practical matter to remove the President of the international organization since, presumably, that authority resides with the international organization.

Edited April 23, 2018 at 10:37 PM by Josh Martin

[Andrew002]

A notice of motion was introduced in January for the membership to vote on selecting our own negotiating committee for the upcoming collective bargaining negotiations. February the president sought counsels opinion on the legal implications of the notice. The president returned in February and killed the notice stating that our lawyer said it was an illegal action and if we want to pursue this notice the assembly will have to get a lawyer.  The assembly believes that collective bargaining is not a function of the executive board but rather one that should be elected based on a skillset. 

I don't want to bore people with the details however 4 months from the original notice he has now decided to create a negotiating committee... ensuring the executive board retains control. The membership understands the president resides over all committees, groups and taskforces...the assembly does not want the remaining board members involved with the negotiations. 

The assembly is frustrated and will oust this entire board in 15 months however for the duration of his term we have to find ways to deal with obstacles that effect our long-term success as a local and in doing so looking too RONR for answers.

Thanks to all for providing me with your knowledge and direction.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Andrew002 said:

A notice of motion was introduced in January for the membership to vote on selecting our own negotiating committee for the upcoming collective bargaining negotiations.

No rule in RONR requires notice for such a motion.

1 hour ago, Andrew002 said:

February the president sought counsels opinion on the legal implications of the notice. The president returned in February and killed the notice stating that our lawyer said it was an illegal action and if we want to pursue this notice the assembly will have to get a lawyer.  The assembly believes that collective bargaining is not a function of the executive board but rather one that should be elected based on a skillset. 

If the question is whether it is in fact correct that applicable law prohibits the adoption of this motion, that is indeed a question for a lawyer.

1 hour ago, Andrew002 said:

The membership understands the president resides over all committees, groups and taskforces...

This is only correct if your rules so provide.

[Gary Novosielski]

4 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I think all of us have been trying to say that dictatorial violations of the rules will continue until the assembly stands up and says to cut it out.

Indeed.  Rules, no matter how masterfully written, do not enforce themselves.