Trina Posted June 12, 2010 at 03:43 PM Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 at 03:43 PM The issue with the time is not that we were one minute late. When we arrived one minute late, the vote was over. The issue with time is that the meeting (by multiple accounts) started two minutes early. There is also the matter that none of this was brought up ahead of time-- that this change to all meetings was not in the meeting notice or circulated in any way. This club has never had a piece of business taken care of in two minutes before. We've pretty well decided among us that all real club business will take place ex parte and that the meetings will just be lip service until we get rid of this dreadful woman. But again, thanks for your input and advice. P.S. JJ, I hope that you are never one minute late for anything.From the numbers in your original post, it sounds like you have 6 votes on your side, and 4 (counting the president) on the other side. That's a majority (sufficient to prevail when appealing from a ruling of the chair, for example). If one of those 4 can be convinced to vote the other way (depending what type of challenge you all decide to persue), that would give a 2/3 margin, which would obviously give 'your' side more clout. As a previous poster pointed out, a 2/3 vote (without notice) is adequate to rescind a previously adopted motion. It is often easier for people to understand the concept of rescinding something, rather than to understand the details of points of order and of appealing a ruling by the chair. Thus, even if the motion was improperly passed, it might be easier in practice to rescind it than to challenge it as a continuing breach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 12, 2010 at 07:00 PM Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 at 07:00 PM From the numbers in your original post, it sounds like you have 6 votes on your side, and 4 (counting the president) on the other side. That's a majority (sufficient to prevail when appealing from a ruling of the chair, for example). If one of those 4 can be convinced to vote the other way (depending what type of challenge you all decide to persue), that would give a 2/3 margin, which would obviously give 'your' side more clout. As a previous poster pointed out, a 2/3 vote (without notice) is adequate to rescind a previously adopted motion. It is often easier for people to understand the concept of rescinding something, rather than to understand the details of points of order and of appealing a ruling by the chair. Thus, even if the motion was improperly passed, it might be easier in practice to rescind it than to challenge it as a continuing breach.A majority of the entire membership looks pretty good to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted June 12, 2010 at 07:52 PM Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 at 07:52 PM A majority of the entire membership looks pretty good to me. Yes, for the original poster's benefit, I should have pointed out that the motion to rescind requires either 2/3 vote without notice OR majority vote with notice OR majority vote of the entire membership. If the total membership of the board is 10 (or even 11), then the 6 people who would have voted against the motion will be sufficient to rescind the motion at a future meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted June 12, 2010 at 07:55 PM Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 at 07:55 PM If the total membership of the board is 10 (or even 11), then the 6 people who would have voted against the motion will be sufficient to rescind the motion at a future meeting.Board? What board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted June 12, 2010 at 08:03 PM Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 at 08:03 PM Board? What board?Yep, that's what I get for not re-reading the original post -- original poster didn't mention a board.> If the total membership of the board is 10 (or even 11)... <Just strike 'of the board'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 13, 2010 at 05:02 AM Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 at 05:02 AM The issue with the time is not that we were one minute late. When we arrived one minute late, the vote was over.If the vote took place before 7:00 then the vote was null and void, as the rights of absentees were violated. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 244, lines 4-8, 21-26) However, if the agenda was only for one meeting, it's too late to complain now. If the vote was for all meetings, a Point of Order may be raised, and you may appeal from the decision of the chair. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 247, lines 19-25) A majority vote overturns the chair's ruling. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 250, lines 9-13)If it did take place between 7:00 and 7:01, then your assembly needs to debate more, but no parliamentary rule was violated (and certainly no continuing breach was created).P.S. JJ, I hope that you are never one minute late for anything.Well, I can't speak for J. J., but no assembly I've ever been a member of is capable of getting anything of importance done in one minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 13, 2010 at 05:20 AM Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 at 05:20 AM P.S. JJ, I hope that you are never one minute late for anything.If I am, I accept the fact that it is my fault.Sorry, but where do get the idea that the assembly should wait for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted June 13, 2010 at 01:53 PM Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 at 01:53 PM If I am, I accept the fact that it is my fault.Sorry, but where do get the idea that the assembly should wait for you?Unless everone's watches are synchronized this is all speculation.....like J.J. said, make sure you're there on time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted June 13, 2010 at 02:00 PM Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 at 02:00 PM P.S. JJ, I hope that you are never one minute late for anything.If I am, I accept the fact that it is my fault.Sorry, but where do get the idea that the assembly should wait for you?I'd start the meeting on the dot without J.J. in a heartbeat.....but not when he was my parliamentarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted June 13, 2010 at 04:16 PM Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 at 04:16 PM Unless everone's watches are synchronized this is all speculationIndeed. This 6:58, 7:00, 7:01 stuff is absurd.You'd think, if only for the sake of argument, Ms. Vonalt would have had the meeting start fifteen minutes early while she arrived on time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 13, 2010 at 05:13 PM Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 at 05:13 PM Unless everone's watches are synchronized this is all speculation.....like J.J. said, make sure you're there on time.I set my of the Bureau of Standards site and generally know the margin of error (Which is less than one minute. Then again, I'm part German. Hopefully, a future edition of NP will note a meeting being called to order at 9:07 AM, a secretary pro tem being elected, an adjourned meeting set, and the meeting adjourned at 9:08. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Ralph Posted June 14, 2010 at 09:40 AM Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 at 09:40 AM Hopefully, a future edition of NP will note a meeting being called to order at 9:07 AM, a secretary pro tem being elected, an adjourned meeting set, and the meeting adjourned at 9:08.I was at such a short board meeting, at which the meeting was called to order, a motion moved, a Point of Order raised and upheld that the motion contravened the bylaws, and the meeting adjourned, all within a minute and a half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Larkin Vonalt Posted June 15, 2010 at 06:40 PM Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 at 06:40 PM This whole business turned out to be the tip of the iceberg for the Madam President. We are exploring our options via FAQ #20. Though the posted meeting time is 7 pm, every meeting prior to this one has convened about 7:15, allowing time for latecomers, chitchat, coffee etc. I often bring cupcakes. We are a friendly, relaxed group and the notion that being one minute late would change the course of every meeting everafter would previously have been considered absurd. I have never expected the assembly to "wait for me." When the secretary went through her minutes she found that we have never started the meeting sooner than 7:10 and even as late as 7:35. Thanks again for your help and advice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 15, 2010 at 07:13 PM Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 at 07:13 PM This whole business turned out to be the tip of the iceberg for the Madam President. We are exploring our options via FAQ #20. Though the posted meeting time is 7 pm, every meeting prior to this one has convened about 7:15, allowing time for latecomers, chitchat, coffee etc. I often bring cupcakes. We are a friendly, relaxed group and the notion that being one minute late would change the course of every meeting everafter would previously have been considered absurd. I have never expected the assembly to "wait for me." When the secretary went through her minutes she found that we have never started the meeting sooner than 7:10 and even as late as 7:35. Thanks again for your help and advice!When the meeting "usually" starts has no bearing on when it is scheduled to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Larkin Vonalt Posted June 16, 2010 at 04:40 AM Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 at 04:40 AM When it is scheduled to start is 7:00. When it started (according to those who were present) was 6:58. Beat a dead horse much, JJ? Again, thanks for the clarification, advice and so forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 16, 2010 at 05:26 AM Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 at 05:26 AM When it is scheduled to start is 7:00. When it started (according to those who were present) was 6:58. Beat a dead horse much, JJ? Again, thanks for the clarification, advice and so forth.No, I just enjoy watching you attempt to justify your position. "Custom" is found p. 17, and if falls to ground when met with an adopted rule.The meeting started at 7:00 PM. You arrived after 7:00 Pm. Any business conduct between 7:00 PM and your arrival time is valid, all other things being equal. Unless you have a rule saying, "No business shall be conducted unless Larkin Vonalt is present," the action is valid. I take it you don't have such a rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efowler13 Posted June 16, 2010 at 07:16 AM Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 at 07:16 AM Yes, for the original poster's benefit, I should have pointed out that the motion to rescind requires either 2/3 vote without notice OR majority vote with notice OR majority vote of the entire membership. If the total membership of the board is 10 (or even 11), then the 6 people who would have voted against the motion will be sufficient to rescind the motion at a future meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efowler13 Posted June 16, 2010 at 07:23 AM Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 at 07:23 AM I would like to know if the 2/3 vote without notice or majority of entire membershipis required to rescind a motion, is it the same to pass a motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Ralph Posted June 16, 2010 at 10:13 AM Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 at 10:13 AM Not in general; most motions take a majority vote to pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 16, 2010 at 11:12 AM Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 at 11:12 AM I would like to know if the 2/3 vote without notice or majority of entire membershipis required to rescind a motion, is it the same to pass a motion?Well, you are referring (in an overly simplistic and incomplete manner) to the vote required to pass a motion to rescind a previously adopted motion. For all the details, see RONR, 10th ed., pages 295-296.Other kinds of motions have other kinds of vote requirements for their adoption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted June 16, 2010 at 11:33 AM Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 at 11:33 AM ...Though the posted meeting time is 7 pm, every meeting prior to this one has convened about 7:15, allowing time for latecomers, chitchat, coffee etc. I often bring cupcakes. We are a friendly, relaxed group and the notion that being one minute late would change the course of every meeting everafter would previously have been considered absurd. I have never expected the assembly to "wait for me." When the secretary went through her minutes she found that we have never started the meeting sooner than 7:10 and even as late as 7:35. ...When the meeting "usually" starts has no bearing on when it is scheduled to start.Business conducted after the official starting time of the meeting -- 7:00 -- is valid. However, the president's action was still underhanded, in view of the established habits of the group. That is a social/political opinion, however, and not an opinion based on rules of parliamentary procedure.Since it's going to be difficult to prove conclusively whether the vote took place at 6:59 or 7:00 or 7:01, I'll repeat my previous advice that the best way to deal with the president's action in this case is to simply rescind the motion that was passed. Especially as Ms. Vonalt's group sounds like a generally relaxed and informal assembly, it will probably make more sense to the members to just undo what was done, rather than to wrangle over the details of whether the motion was properly passed in the first place.I would further advise some pre-meeting planning among the Vonalts and their allies, so that you are prepared with the rules regarding rescind, and probably also appeal from a ruling by the chair (in case the president says you can't revisit the earlier motion, or that only someone from the winning side can move to rescind, or some similar nonsense). Just to be clear, any member can bring a motion to rescind.RONR-In Brief would be a useful resource in planning and preparation -- a few copies wouldn't set you back much. Better to take back the reins of the organization, rather than conducting all business 'ex parte' until the president's term runs out, as you suggested doing in one of your earlier posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted June 16, 2010 at 12:54 PM Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 at 12:54 PM Business conducted after the official starting time of the meeting -- 7:00 -- is valid. However, the president's action was still underhanded, in view of the established habits of the group. That is a social/political opinion, however, and not an opinion based on rules of parliamentary procedure.Some things are worth highlighting.......ok folks, now synchronize those watches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 16, 2010 at 04:38 PM Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 at 04:38 PM Business conducted after the official starting time of the meeting -- 7:00 -- is valid. However, the president's action was still underhanded, in view of the established habits of the group. That is a social/political opinion, however, and not an opinion based on rules of parliamentary procedure.I wouldn't use the term "underhanded." The chair, quite possibly, obeyed the rules (p. 433. #1). Ms. Vonalt (I'm assuming it is a "Ms.") wants to do something another way, which doesn't follow the rules. In that case, Ms. Vonalt has no real ground for complaining.Had the assembly felt that Ms. Vonalt was necessary at the start of the meeting, they simply could have Recessed the meeting until she showed up. They did not.Ms. Volalt, by her own statement, was late. It is clear that there was time for the assembly to conduct business, legitimately.This is a situation where Ms. Volant thinks, apparently because she is Larkin Vonalt, the chair is terrible in not waiting for her. No known rule supports that claim. The assembly, by failing to recess, obviously didn't feel that her presence was essential to the conduct of business.She should show up on time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted June 16, 2010 at 05:37 PM Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 at 05:37 PM I wouldn't use the term "underhanded." The chair, quite possibly, obeyed the rules (p. 433. #1). Ms. Vonalt (I'm assuming it is a "Ms.") wants to do something another way, which doesn't follow the rules. In that case, Ms. Vonalt has no real ground for complaining.Had the assembly felt that Ms. Vonalt was necessary at the start of the meeting, they simply could have Recessed the meeting until she showed up. They did not.Ms. Volalt, by her own statement, was late. It is clear that there was time for the assembly to conduct business, legitimately.This is a situation where Ms. Volant thinks, apparently because she is Larkin Vonalt, the chair is terrible in not waiting for her. No known rule supports that claim. The assembly, by failing to recess, obviously didn't feel that her presence was essential to the conduct of business.She should show up on time.There were three members missing at the start of the meeting, not just Ms. Vonalt. Ultimately, the assembly will make the judgement whether the president's action was underhanded, or whether this is just a case of a single member who is offended to have been left out of a decision. If the majority feels offended by the process, they have the power to rescind the motion that was passed.I was taking the original poster's description of the customary procedure in her organization at face value (i.e. people chatting, having coffee, etc. rather than starting right in with business at 7:00), in which case it IS sneaky (although not parliamentarily improper) for someone to bring up substantive new business right on the hour -- at a time when the members, by their established custom, would not expect such business to be brought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted June 16, 2010 at 05:40 PM Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 at 05:40 PM Can we at least agree that this topic is not worth more than 50 posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.