Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

stature

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by stature

  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?
  14. In the "Interpreting Bylaws" topic re who can interpret bylaws meanings Josh Martin provided a response that assumed a Board made an interpretation binding on a convention.: "If the board is granted "full power and authority over the affairs of the society between conventions" or the like (which seems extremely likely if the convention only meets once every three years), then the board may interpret the bylaws between meetings of the convention. This ruling could, of course, be overturned at a meeting of the convention. I have a question adding to the above scenario of a board granted "full power and authority over the affairs of the society between conventions" : Let's say the bylaws also state that Member X determines the legal intent of bylaws (Member X holds an officer position). It is known that Member X is planning to interpret bylaws such that it affects who can qualify for other officer positions and how long their term will be, and is now making deals with others to use this power of interpretation. The factual intent of the membership on officer terms does not match what Member X is planning. Can the Board suspend that bylaw that gives Member X that power over bylaws via the Board's 2/3 vote saying it involves interpretation of bylaws and is procedural in nature, as it is affecting convention election procedures, and then subsequently appoint a nominating committee with the Board's own instructions on how candidates for officer positions will be determined to qualify to run under the bylaws and how long their term lasts under the bylaws (based on the Board's own interpretations of meaning of bylaws) ? If this is permissible to suspend that bylaw , does the suspension of the bylaw last only for that Board meeting and Member X then automatically has the power of bylaw interpretation again at a convention where Member X could assert different interpretations (unless the bylaw is suspended again or changed)?
  15. stature

    Nominations

    yes and a second is not required RONR (10th ed.) p 418, l. 4
  16. Maybe you are recalling 'should' as meaning suggested?
  17. The only info provided on the bylaws was the right to a hearing before the Board, which is giving a forum with judge, but not a procedure for the hearing. Perhaps the poster can provide the exact bylaws language if there is more to it. I didn't see mention by the poster of bylaws language that covered procedural matters of notice and time to prepare, or anything else about how the hearing was to be conducted, which is why I would draw that from RONR (looking at the language in RONR for the absolutes and the rights, not the 'should' or 'can' language). I'm looking at this from the perspective of a hearing as a right of the accused, not a right of the board. As a right of the accused, a hearing provides fair opportunity to defend against charges.
  18. I disagree with saying 'If not in the bylaws then not required' in this situation. If RONR is adopted in the bylaws and bylaws say that "RONR governs the society in all situations AND where RONR is not inconsistent with the bylaws" (as most bylaws will state when adopting RONR), then according to RONR p. 631 l. 18-23 the person accused has a RIGHT to due process, which includes being informed of the charge and being given time to prepare a defense. How can the person have been given due process when they were just surprised by the invite and unknowingly stayed to find themself the defendant in a BOD trial? I think their rights under the society rules have been violated.
  19. I'll read and re-read. I'm planning to announce the proposed change and cc the general counsel of the organization. I figure if I write it up carefully and there's still something wrong, the counsel will have to earn his keep and tell me why.
  20. the people at the meeting set the compensation for the two year term edit to add: its paid monthly
  21. Thank you for the replies. I think I'll go for a bylaw to cut the term short then. We're paying for someone to do nothing. I'd like that job too , who wouldn't, but in the interests of the organization, its got to go.
  22. I look forward to RONR 11 ed

  23. Our organization has bylaws in place that provide for officer positions with a two year term. The problem is that other changes over the years have eliminated the need for this one officer position because there is nothing for the officer to oversee anymore. It is a paid position. We will have our national meeting in the fall. Under current bylaws, we have to elect someone to this position. Under current bylaws, this officer is listed with other positions as having a two year term. Our bylaws don't allow suspension. I want to propose a new bylaw to shorten the term of this officer position now to end it this year(in addition to changing the bylaws and eliminating this officer position from the list so we'll no longer be electing this officer position in 2013 two years from now) The bylaw change I will suggest: "Officer position shall end at midnight on the last day of 2011". Question: Is there any problem that the experienced parliamentarians here can foresee? That is, will there be any violations claimed given that the people who run for the officer position are doing so under bylaws that list it as having a two year term? Or is it perfectly fine to put a new rule in the bylaws that cuts that term short now? I don't want to see unanticipated claims of violations of rights under Robert's Rules I also have been thinking about whether elections fall under the category of 'rules of order' and can be suspended via a motion to suspend the election of that officer indefinately (that way we could get rid of the position from this coming election). Or is it a basic right of an individual to run for that office since its listed in the bylaws, and therefore the election is not suspendable?
×
×
  • Create New...