Dfredc

So, a new development this week. The assembly at the last quarterly business meeting instructed the Outreach Committee to have a new reorganization meeting that ensured every member was to be included so that any member that wanted to participate would be able to do so. However, upon arrival at the said reorganization meeting the previous chair (conducting the meeting) informed us new members that we would not be allowed to vote for the new chairman — claiming that Article 18, Section 2.e,) [posted earlier in this thread chain] only permitted previous members of the committee to vote for the new Chairman. We obviously were upset. The overall Chairman of the whole assembly (not just the standing committee) was there to observe the meeting. >>some background - this committee has gone rogue this past term, and there is a desire to reign it in with new members<< brought it to everyone's attention that the section being used to deny members to vote should be interpreted as inclusive not exclusive. He was shouted down by the committee chair and subsequently ignored when he attempted to speak again. On two separate occasions, I moved to adjourn the meeting, had seconds on both and was ignored both times. The last time I repeated it three times getting louder each time but still ignored. So only the previous members ended up voting and electing a chair.

Conveniently the very next day there was an executive board meeting, and I thought the matter would be handled and taken care of... but no. Two separate motions to declare it null and void died for lack of seconds. I believe mainly because the board members are new and did not completely understand the issue circumstances. I am confident that a majority of them have now changed their minds and will address the matter at their next board meeting.

Now to my question on clearing up the matter on the interpretation of the section of the Bylaws... can this be given to the assembly to interpret by a simple majority vote OR must a Bylaws change be made to clarify this now (which requires a 2/3 vote of the assembly)? OR can/should the board use the authority given to them in Article 18, Section 2.a} of the Bylaws [shown above in an earlier post] to suspend or dissolve the Outreach Committee?

Thank you!

Our Bylaws state that a standing committee has a chairman but I just received an email from one of the committees that states they have elected co-chairs. Is this allowed?

"We would like to introduce the... Candidate Recruitment and Support Committee and our developing plans for 2019. The committee members are the two of us (co-chairs)" and then goes on to list four other members.

3 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

This is troubling. The chairman has the obligation to have at hand at every meeting the list of all committees and their members. If he does not know then the assembly is also in the dark.

 

It is indeed. I hope to be instrumental in getting the Bylaws to be more clear and precise on the standing committees by the next quarterly meeting after this one so the assembly can vote on it.

4 hours ago, Bruce Lages said:

Just to be clear, were you a member of this standing committee when the improper notice of a reorganzational meeting was issued?

No, but the board directed the committees to send out a call to all members of the assembly so that each member had an opportunity to participate in the organization meetings. Additionally, this particular committee has this written in the Bylaws about it:

G. Outreach Committee
1. The Outreach Committee membership may include CCRCC members and any
[volunteers] who wish to participate at the organizational meeting.

Those of us left out of the opportunity feel that Section 2.a  takes precedence over Article 18 e).

To my dismay, btw there is no directive that a record actually is to be kept of who the members of each committee actually are...

Thanks. A lot easier than I thought it'd be. 🙂

We have a standing committee that our Bylaws state is to be reorganized every two years with a new call to the membership to vote on a new chair. The bylaws state "any who wish to participate at the organizational meeting". The issue is that the previous chair did not notify all the members of when that meeting was happening. So a new chair was elected with only a fraction of members being notified (I was not one of them). I wish to make a motion to have the committee suspended until a new meeting is called by the chair of the assembly so that he can issue it to every member of the organization.

I was made aware of the issue when the agenda for the upcoming meeting had the "new" chair listed as giving the report for the committee. When I spoke to our chairman about the issue he told me to make the motion, and then when I speak to it give the reason for your motion. However, a trusted friend told me the proper way was to raise a point of order first and then make the motion. She said to say something like, "Point of order, is it true that a proper call to the  [name of the committee] was not made to every member?"  And to wait for the chair to answer and then immediately make the motion. So now, I don't how to bring the motion... help?

If you ask me the bylaws were very poorly written regarding standing committees.

On 2/9/2018 at 6:52 AM, Josh Martin said:

1.) Yes, but only board members may view minutes of a meeting in executive session.

2.) There is no parliamentary rule that, in general, people must be informed of actions taken against them. Formal disciplinary procedures would require such notification, but I’m not sure this action falls into that category.

What exactly do your bylaws say on this subject?

Well, you will need to be very careful in how you go about that, since this involves actions taken in executive session.

Oh, I don’t know. I don’t find it that hard to believe that an organization wrote a rule saying that all approved minutes would be public, and didn’t consider the consequences.

Thank you for your response!

The bylaws of the organization state that the minutes of the board will be released to the members of the body (the ones that elected the board) after the minutes have been approved by the board. Which generally is the next month. I am pretty sure this does not include executive session minutes but does include actions taken in it.

I haven't addressed this publicly yet as my life got busy in other areas that mattered more to me. I think I'll just state things as they happened and mention that the board took this action without even bringing me in to ask me for my side of things. As they really have a right to do, being a private organization (even though an official political party) I'll just address the apparent injustice of an action taken without fully understanding all the circumstances. I'd be more than happy to meet with the board to address it and will make that known. Due to a lot of other things going on with this chairman, I really would be surprised if he lasted to the end of his term without being removed.

J.J. thanks. As a note of information, board minutes are released to the members of the voting body after they have been adopted by the board in accordance with the organization's by-laws. At that time they are considered public.

Joshua Katz, at this point in time I am just a concerned politically involved citizen. I have in the past been a voting member of the local body and have represented my precinct in both County and State conventions. I intend to shed light on what has happened in several local public forums first (hoping that will alarm enough people into action) before I seek legal options. Although I certainly see the value of it.

Last night I had a very surprising occurrence happen. I walked in to observe the board meeting of our local County political party (as I have frequently done this year) and as I was about to sit down when the chairman approached me and informed me that I had been trespassed from the office and he asked me to leave. This was a complete blindside to me. I asked why, and he said that because I had been involved in a disturbance that happened at a previous board meeting. He stated that the board had voted on it. I asked the board members present if that were true and one responded in the affirmative, the others remained silent. Now, in explanation of the "disturbance", unknown to me a local party member and the former Treasurer of the board had called the Sheriff's office to file a formal complaint against the Chairman for electronic forgery. The police had gathered outside and were talking to these two. A board member asked to go into executive session and thus cleared the room of all observers (there were about 10 of us). We waited outside while the police did their thing and no arrest was made, only a complaint filed. We (the observers) had waited around expecting to be let back in when they ended executive session. We were informed that they were going to stay in session for the rest of the meeting so we all went home - no big deal. I thought. I missed the next two monthly board meeting because of illness and when I showed up last night the above happened.

I left and went home. Caused no disturbance other than my bewildered questions. Later that evening a board member called me and told me some of what happened. Evidently, during an executive board meeting (the board member was not clear whether it was the night in question or at one of the other meetings) the chairman asked that I and 5 other people be trespassed from the office. Of the members present 3 voted against the measure but the majority were in favor. I was then told that the chairman took it upon himself to send a letter to each of us informing us of the action. That never happened (I was made aware of 3 of the people and KNOW they were not notified like I was not). I have been a vocal opponent of this chairman in public forums, but that is where it has remained. In person, there have been no verbal or physical altercations whatsoever. I just happened to be at a meeting where something happened that the chairman did not like.

My question (setting aside that I now know information that happened in an x-session, that I really shouldn't know, because well, it happened in x-session)

1) Do the minutes of the board need to show what action was taken and voted on in executive session?

2) When an action is taken against particular people (as in this case) is there a requirement that they are notified of such action? I mean other than it is a common courtesy?

I suppose I am most upset because I feel like I was blindsided and am being "punished" for something I had no involvement with and was given no opportunity before the board to defend myself. At the very least I think I am entitled to see the exact motion, and all that it says so that I am aware of my "boundaries".

Very interesting indeed. I would say some clarifying needs to be done in our by-laws then (same organization as John Law). In which case it changes the challenge in our current circumstances.

Sorry, it took so long to get back.

But John Law above ^^^ has filled you in correctly with the information. I might add that historical precedent of the organization has been that the board has always accepted a resignation, then the Chair would announce to the assembly the resignation and the call for a special election to elect a replacement.

On 9/3/2017 at 8:22 PM, Richard Brown said:

I don't think that's exactly right. you don't declare the chair vacant if the chair is the regular elected presiding officer. That procedure is used only when the presiding officer is an appointed or elected chair pro tem. In all other cases , the assembly must suspend the rules to take away from the chairman the authority to preside during all or part of a given session. I explained that procedure in an earlier post.

See page 651 line 16 through page 653 line 19.

 

This all has been very helpful, Thanks!

2 minutes ago, J. J. said:

If any member is disruptive the assembly, after several warnings, may vote that he be removed.  If he reuses, I would suggest you call the police, and be prepared to press charges.

Good idea! This chair is so set on himself, I would not be surprised if he refused to leave. Thank you!

4 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Certainly. The assembly is not required to suffer the bad behavior of any member. It would take a motion to suspend the rules and declare the chair vacant, followed by election of a chairman pro tem, and finally a motion to expel the offender for the remainder of the meeting.

Thank you!

2 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Not approving the minutes does not change anything that happened.  Action taken is action taken regardless of whether it is reflected in the minutes.   However, not approving the minutes can ultimately lead to problems because of different memories and conflicting opinions of what happened.  The minutes create a prima facie record of what transpired at a particular meeting.  Failing to approve the minutes does not negate what actually happened.  A motion adopted at a meeting remains adopted regardless of whether the minutes get approved.

Thank you.

If I can add another question... what happens if the minutes are not approved from a meeting? In the case above if the majority of the board decides that they do not want to approve the minutes from this last meeting, what happens? Should I ask this in a new thread?

5 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

I agree with Mme. Zhé-Zhé. Putting the appeal to the assembly means turning one's back on the chair and carrying on no matter what. It is a grave maneuver and one had better be up for a battle of the wills and test of persuasion.

Thank you! I think the board members have now realized that grave action needs to happen and will gather the confidence to do this.

5 hours ago, J. J. said:

Have the supporters of this all turn to the person putting the appeal and the other motions relaying to the suspension.  The suspended chair is free to yell and bang his gave all he wants.

This is excellent! Does the board have a course of action if he continues to disrupt? Can they actually physically have him removed?

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I'm under the impression that a member attempted to do just that and was rebuffed by the chair.

Dfredc, is that what happened ?

This is exactly what happened.

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree with the previous responses and would add that the assembly always has the option of suspending the rules and removing the president from presiding at a particular meeting. See disciplinary procedures in chapter XX of RONR and also official interpretation No. 2006-2 for more information.  http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_2

The bottom line, though, is that there isn't much you can do unless a significant number of other members agree that the president needs to be reined in and are willing to do something about it. Perhaps a couple of members whom the president respects can convince him to be less dictatorial. .

Thank you! I think this is what they will probably do. They do have the numbers to do this 6 against the chair for sure and one sympathetic. 4 against (including the chair). Only 3 against once they have taken action to remove the board member "brought back from the dead" by the chair (see previous response to message).

7 hours ago, jstackpo said:

An easy start to fixing things would be to simply move to Censure the Chairman  --  you could precede your resolution to censure with a few "Whereas"s detailing why.  Majority vote is all that is required.  Adopting the motion doesn't actually change anything; it just makes your collective opinion clear and in the open.

This might, at least, encourage the "timid" even though, I'll bet, the dictatorial chairman tries to shut you down. 

OTOH, the original motion may well have been dilatory, so pick your battles carefully.

The chairman tried to seat a member of the board that had resigned. He had already relayed it to the membership and set up a special meeting to replace. Before that meeting, the board sent a notice to replace to him and the membership and scheduled a special meeting to address referring to the membership for a vote of his removal. Two days before the meeting to refer the previous board member (an ally to the chairman) decided to un-resign and sent an email to all the members stating so. The chairman followed up with canceled the meeting to replace the board member.

When the meeting began the chairman insisted that the previous board member is added to the roll call. An objection raised, the chairman ruled it dilatory. The member that was ruled against in the objection appealed to the members (3 times, seconded) but the chairman just steamrolled right over it all. Did not allow a vote to be taken.

That seated member (the one that had resigned) was the deciding vote to keep the board from taking it to the members. 2/3 needed 7-4 votes to send it to the members.

Can you cite for me the pages where I could find about censoring him? I suspect the board is going to take action soon. I'm not on the board itself but know some that are.

8 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

Get a new chairman.

That is what the board is working on...

 Wow, thank you, guys! I'll try to respond to each for clarifications and maybe more questions.

In such a case, would the member have to physically stand and appeal to the assembly? This was a board meeting and they were all seated.

What would be the procedure if the chairman still ignores and just steamrolls ahead?

Thank you btw!