adavis

Thank you all. The Parliamentarian was asked to look into the matter concerning the member who was going on alumna status and she reported back to the membership during its monthly business meeting. There were no questions or discussion. I understand that the membership can vote on assessing the member at the next business meeting, however the National organization has already approved her new status. This whole issue involves a lot of money for an event that the member can't take part in as a full member. We'll wait to see what's next. Again, my thanks!

Recently, my local chapter was confronted with a situation involving a member who has been granted alumna status by the national chapter as of May 1st. According to the national organization, alumna members are no longer responsible for dues or any chapter or national payments. The local chapter has a major event in May and is asking the alumna member to pay an assessment for an event that will take place when she is no longer a full member. The member asked our Parliamentarian to rule on this and she asked the area Parliamentarian (above her) to make the determination. Since both the local chapter and the national chapter's by-laws were silent on this matter, the area Parliamentarian ruled that the member changing her status was not responsible for the payment. Our Parliamentarian sent her report to members in advance of the monthly meeting. She then made the report in person at the monthly meeting which included the area Parliamentarian's ruling. The chair asked if there was any questions or discussion. Hearing none, she thanked the Parliamentarian for her report. Now it seems that some members are upset because they didn't read the report or listen during the meeting and they want the soon to be alumna member to pay. As there was no discussion or questions and the report was accepted as read, did there have to be a vote in order for her report to be binding?

Thank you so much!

Sorry, I should have been a little clearer. Any amendment submitted must be voted on by the entire membership. That's more than 4000 people. There is a fair amount of discussion by both sides before the convention. At convention, members have two days to vote on the various amendments presented. The vote is announced near the end of the convention. Last year, the members voted an amendment that would reverse the decision to censure the suspended member but it didn't pass. This year, someone has once again presented the same amendment that was voted down by the majority of the membership. Do we have to continue to vote down this amendment each year it's presented?

Each year prior to our conventions, my organization reviews amendment submissions from members. Last year there was an amendment seeking to reverse a decision by the board that suspended a member for bad behavior. The member violated our by-laws and operating procedures. The offenses were so egregious that it was determined that a long suspension from the organization was warranted. A member submitted an amendment to reduce the amount of time someone could be suspended. It was voted down by the membership during our convention. Can that same amendment be brought up again this year?

Thank you!!!

There's been much discussion in our organization about a VP vacancy that was previously filled by a member who later ran for that office and won. He is now up for re-election and his detractors say that he cannot run again as it will mean he would serve three terms (term limit is 2). Unfortunately, there's nothing in our by-laws or operating procedures that address this and I can't seem to find anything definitive in RONR. It seems to me that the first term served should not be counted as his term as he was appointed and serving out the term of a member who had resigned, but that won't satisfy his detractors. Any thoughts or guidance?