Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

stature

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Thank you for your input and for the suggestions on how to fix it. The subsequent proposal would not be impacted by going back to the bylaw sentence the way it was meant to be, and the new change can take effect if it is voted for. The problem was just repeating the scrivenor's error bylaw and what happens when it continues to be repeated especially with respect to other proposed changes. Fixing should be easy given the scrivenor error can be compared to the good documentation in the minutes.
  2. The text is 'officers are limited to two four-year terms, and after another period of four years can apply again..." The scrivenors error is that the text that was not supposed to be included: " (specific officer position) is limited to two four-year terms, and after another period of four years can apply again..." The scrivenors error was never passed. Now the error appears in a new proposed bylaw change but the error is not identified as a change or something new to be voted on along with the highlighted changes in the bylaws up for vote. The effect is that under the scrivenors error bylaw people can rotate among different officer positions without waiting out for 4 years before they apply for a position again. The true bylaw is that limited people to 2 terms of any officer position, once the 2 terms are up, they have to wait 4 years to apply again to be officer. The erroneous bylaw appears in minutes as rejected. So the question is whether including that erroneous bylaw sentence in another bylaw proposal legitimized it, even though the erroneous bylaw isn't called out as a change, and was just copied along with the other parts of a section. The changes for the new proposal were highlighted to be voted on, not the erroneous sentence.
  3. Hi - please let me know what sections of Robert's Rules of Order 11th ed. are relevant to this situation: One of the bylaws has a scrivener's error. The bylaws state they include Robert's Rules of Order 11th ed. Before the scrivenor's error is corrected, another bylaw change was proposed that copied the contents of the bylaw text containing the scrivenor's error along with the new proposed changes. Is the scrivenor's error now legitimate and no longer a 'scrivenor's error' ?
  4. Bylaws allow the Board to vote for bylaws amendments to be submitted by mail with a ballot to members between conventions. Facts The Board votes to make amendments and as per bylaws to send it to members. Amendments are grouped and referred to by topic on the ballot without reference to any bylaw numbers, and the topic group consists of topics that can be separately voted on without affect on the other bylaws in the grouping. Question: Can a member assert a demand for separate consideration as per RONR p 274 l.31 to 275 on grouped together proposed bylaw amendments sent by mail? "...one or more of the several resolutions must receive separate consideration and vote at the request of a single member...." ((The demand for separate consideration doesn't need a second and isn't debated , so can that demand apply to a voting by mail on proposed lumped together bylaw amendments - a demand that it be separated?))
  5. Facts: An Officer has a first term under title "Officer". For the second term the title is "Officer" for the first half of the 2nd term and changed to "Y Officer" for the second half of the 2nd term (changed due to bylaws). The officer runs for election 6 months before the end of the 2nd term in office. The bylaws specify that "an officer" (general language not specifying title) is limited to 2 terms and has to wait a period of years before running again. The nominating committee did not invalidate the candidate to run for office at a convention. Meanwhile a bylaw proposal to make "Officer" and "Y Officer" (specific titles) to be considered a new/different position for term limit purposes did not pass and was voted down. The organization is still under the old bylaws that state "an officer" (general language) is limited to 2 terms. As of Jan 1 the person is now in a '3rd term' as "an officer" ; but a second term as "Y Officer" (half of first term counts as one full term under RONR, and this year starting the second term as "Y Officer") . Is this a continuing breach of bylaws that "an officer" is limited to two terms that may be challenged under RONR procedures or did the nominating committee at the time of convention / election somehow make it decided ok ? My thought is that "an officer" is now in a 3rd term and it is a continuing breach. My position is that the nominating committee didn't invalidate the candidate but that doesn't change that the 2nd term of "an officer" ended Dec 31 2015. Further that even if the convention accepted the candidate to run that does not change that the person is not qualified under the bylaws to hold the position because the bylaws are the old bylaws. Please share with me if you disagree / agree with my position that this is a continuing breach that may be challenged under RONR.
  6. if a motion is to change bylaws and refers to 'the law' as a reason for change, then at the meeting 'the law' is finally given (read but no hard copy), but this is inadequate notice given no chance of prior review of the purported requirement (and ultimately members were fooled into voting a change not in fact required by law) - is there a basis for challenge in Robert's Rules of Order after the fact? I understand that there is a legal basis (mistake, misrepresentation etc) but wanted to know if Robert's has some basis to invalidate something like that based on notice rules or any other procedure.
  7. Godel fan - thank you - that is very helpful to have others share the motion work, I have enough people who would do this, I don't want to be the only one talking and then have my president come here to seek your advice against me I've had people only after our meeting approach me and say they agreed and wanted my motion heard but didn't know what to do, I didn't either, but now I do and will try it out. Right now the President has a habit of filtering/controlling business by not allowing motions he doesn't like. The Vice President is on my side but isn't the chair unless the President might take a very rare absence, which is unlikely
  8. Good advice here, I'll try it ! I was also thinking how it could blow up on me though: If I raise a point of order to find out the official ruling and get a 'you can't do that' then next I'd raise a point of order "the chair is supposed facilitate business, not block it, and is expected to be impartial " and then the Chair/President will rule in favor of himself being non-biased. then I'd raise an appeal stating the president is biased in favor of his agenda and by this time the people will lose interest in the underlying motion and not focus on what the discussion was (business) and may go into personalities and fighting which is what I want to stay away from because it would be a quick business killer. I want people to stay open to business ideas and not think of this as voting down one person in general in all things just to show blind support for another person in general in all things, I want the focus to be on business and the motion Or can I simply appeal to get him out of the chair and put in the vice president during this exchange to get a proper ruling on the motion?
  9. Hi . This is a strategy question based on an unclear behavior of our President. If the Chair says 'I'm not going to allow that motion" and immediately recognizes the next person, What should be done - a Point of Order that there was no ruling on the motion or an Appeal from the Decision of the Chair making the Chair explain, or first Request Information on why the Chair decided that? This is a typical thing our President does to control what is talked about with our members at meetings. By going to the next person immediately, the next person begins making their new motion (and is interrupting that new person to make the Chair respond to why my motion is 'not allowed' okay?). The motions 'not allowed' are business motions, within regular business for our group, not attacking other members or anything illegal, they just simply are motions the President doesn't like. I'm interested in what strategy needs to be taken to assure my motions can be heard. Or do I simply need to be faster in demanding a fully explained ruling? and then appeal it?
  10. I think I have good factual grounds for a complaint for removal (on another issue). In addition, this convention may be the one where everyone agrees to make removal happen via election as Member X's plan is very much in disfavor. I'm also going to have to submit a bylaws change since this power is too much for one member to have (and temptation to abuse for one's own benefit, as extending others' terms would add supporters to Member X for his other agenda items on the Board) .
  11. I was trying to figure out a way to silence Member X prior to convention and waiting to change bylaws. Suspend rules seemed a good choice if bylaw interpretation was procedural for the conduct of meetings, or if bylaw interpretation arises out of a point of order or appeal. Others here believe that outside a meeting interpretation can be done, which I'll have to think more about. Kind of like "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" except changed to "If Member X interprets a bylaw outside a meeting and no one is around to make a point of order or appeal, was there a binding interpretation on the society?"
  12. re "unless it is applicable only in a meeting" would this include rules on terms and elections, since elections occur only in a meeting ?
  13. In official interpretation 2006-2 the administrative duties can be limited during the meeting. So if the board makes rules governing the convention on who can qualify for office and term lengths, during their board meeting, and after suspending that Member X's empowerment, in essence defining the meaning of bylaws (using board's power and authority between conventions) then wouldn't the board's ruling take precedence over Member X later acts, as the Board acts in the name of the convention?
×
×
  • Create New...