Andrew002

A notice of motion was introduced in January for the membership to vote on selecting our own negotiating committee for the upcoming collective bargaining negotiations. February the president sought counsels opinion on the legal implications of the notice. The president returned in February and killed the notice stating that our lawyer said it was an illegal action and if we want to pursue this notice the assembly will have to get a lawyer.  The assembly believes that collective bargaining is not a function of the executive board but rather one that should be elected based on a skillset. 

I don't want to bore people with the details however 4 months from the original notice he has now decided to create a negotiating committee... ensuring the executive board retains control. The membership understands the president resides over all committees, groups and taskforces...the assembly does not want the remaining board members involved with the negotiations. 

The assembly is frustrated and will oust this entire board in 15 months however for the duration of his term we have to find ways to deal with obstacles that effect our long-term success as a local and in doing so looking too RONR for answers.

Thanks to all for providing me with your knowledge and direction.

The membership can vote on tossing the board however the finial decision remains with the international president. It includes a through investigation... history tells us he never releases a current president or board member...has to be done through election.

Its a complicated situation, the membership have stepped forward many times but are thwarted by our international president and protected by the constitution and bylaws. 

The chair/president of our local has considerable power. For instance, a member who resigned from the union to assume a new position with management was not content in his new post. Within the week the member approached the  president asking for his old job back...president said yes. The presidents action contravened our constitution & bylaws and circumvented 265 senior positions. It was not his decision to make and should have been voted on by the assembly...the board members do not feel accountable to the assembly/members.

My views on fundamental function has to do with amending local bylaws that change the fabric of the current archaic laws and bring us into the 21st century.

The board of course

Richard, we've  adopted motions in the same meeting however these motions are in support of financial contributions to a cause. Motions that change the fundamental function of how the assembly are always deferred to the following meeting. 

Joshua, I don't understand the following statement:

"if you're talking about a membership meeting, then the board is not even present as such (although its members may well be present, as members, not as a board) and is in no position to be considering anything."

The board is present and conducts every local meeting. I must also inform you that the membership includes 1100 members.

knowledge is power and currently their isn't anyone that is well versed in Roberts Rules of Order...Id like to change that!

The officers in our local seem to believe the membership have no right to question the EB and should recuse themselves from any involvement. I have begun to take an interest and do understand that a 2/3 majority vote can change many things and the membership plays an important function in future outcomes. I've witnessed a number if improprieties that contravene our international constitution & bylaws for personal favour or gain in addition to circumventing the rules or order.

The executive board considers a notice of motion new business which is voted on by the membership the following month. This is all new to me however after attending several meetings something seems inherently wrong with the way the rules of order are interpreted.

Yes from the agenda.

Great information from the group, let me start from the beginning.

A local meeting was held last March...under new order of business a notice of motion was brought forward. It is customary that our local defer the vote to the following month, the notice of  motion is posted for the entire membership to review...at the next meeting the notice of motion is debated and then voted on by the members in attendance. 

At the local meeting in April the Chair removed the motion prior to debate because the mover was not in attendance. Members did not question the decision and so it was removed. When the chair was questioned the following day member he simply replied "I removed it because the member who introduced the notice was not in attendance. When his authority was questioned he said "that is the way is been done in the past".

Sorry to everyone who provided input, I should have provided more clarity as to the events.

I'll speak with the principle and discuss your suggestions for next meeting. 

Yes, it was a notice of motion last month, seconded and understood it would be debated this month. 

The chair used the excuse that "this is the way it has been done in the past"! The unions constitution and bylaws verify that RONR is to be adhered too.

Quote

 

The motion was moved the month before and now a month later the membership was voting on the motion. The mover was not in attendance for the vote and therefore the chair removed the motion.

In a recent union meeting a motion was "removed" by the chair due to the fact the mover of the motion was not in attendance. Did the chair have the right to remove the motion?