KingK

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Well, as  a former PTSA officer, I'm quite certain the district president is also wrong. But that's beside the point.

Even if it were okay to have the board vote electronically, the point is that the board is not empowered to elect anyone, much less themselves. The vote must take place at a properly-called meeting of the general membership at which a quorum is present.  And notice of the meeting should state that elections will be held.

Certainly. All the more reason for me to become registered.

The email I sent in response to the “email voting” concern was succinct, but included all of the information you mentioned.

This isn’t even a matter of (mis)interpretation. I have only offered details that come directly from our local, state-conceived bylaws.

A state-level leader has ‘sided’ with our local president as though the methods were at all debatable. Such has been the case month-after-month.

Thank you for responding. 

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

This is not a method of resolving parliamentary disputes, though. If they proceed, you can raise a point of order at the next meeting that the purported "election" was held by the wrong body and therefore is meaningless.

Thank you for the suggestion. 

6 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

And be prepared to appeal from the ruling of the chair. You will need someone to second your appeal and then you need to be able to speak intelligently as to why the chair is wrong. It would help to have others lined up in advance to also speak in support of your position.

Your guidance is a tremendous help. 

2 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Okay, so a general meeting. Does your membership elect your board per your bylaws? If so, I can imagine no reason that, even if email ballots were allowed, only the board would be voting now.

 

Well, there you go. I see no reason, then, why the board should be voting on this now. 

My point(s) exactly. I asked that we wait until our next scheduled meeting to vote May 21. I, also, asked that all members be contacted via email to encourage attendance & a vote. 

My points have been defeated by the District 1 PTA president of our state, and I am surprised. However, I do not know what our local president’s email stated or asked. 

Well, here’s an update:

The PTSA President emailed me to say:

”Thank you for sharing your concerns about the electronic voting of the slate.   I have spoken with [———], the District 1 PTSA President and have been advised that it is okay to have the board vote electronically on the slate.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Thank you all for your responses.

14 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

No, it is not a proxy vote. It is, however, a form of absentee ballot, which is also prohibited by RONR (and apparently by your bylaws).

A proxy vote is a method in which a person gives their “proxy” to another person, who then attends the meeting and votes on their behalf.

Thank you for clarifying what proxy means. That  explanation is very helpful. 

24 minutes ago, reelsman said:

Voting by mail or email would be a prohibited form of absentee voting under 3e and RONR.

Thank you for this information!

24 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Was it a board meeting or membership meeting?

It was a general meeting only attended by 13 (of 23) executive board members. 

Our bylaws state in Article VI: Election, Section 2. “Executive Committee Officers shall be elected by April 30 by the voting body of the association.”

18 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

No, but in blue.

I recognized this response as humor. 😅

Kind Sirs: Weldon, Gary, Atul, Joshua, and Richard: You, gentlemen, are my “speed dial” NAP-pers. I truly appreciate your prompt responses and scholarly support. Thank you kindly. Also—

Are any of you available in person to attend the next meeting? *chuckle*

Seriously, I am hopeful that this latest attempt at yet another shortcut will be the last one.

Thank you, All!

Our bylaws state, “Voting by proxy and/or absentee ballot is prohibited.”

And—
“ARTICLE XV: AMENDMENTS
These PTA bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds (%) vote of the members present and voting, a quorum having been met, at any general membership meeting, provided that these requirements have been complied with”

Can the executive board and membership vote on bylaws amendments via email?

11 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I imagine Guest KingK doesn't really know if it  was "tabled" (whatever that means to them), laid on the table, postponed to the next meeting, postponed without date, postponed indefinitely or referred to this  new committee yet to be appointed.  I think the bottom line is that it hasn't yet been voted on and is in some kind of "limbo". 

 Has she made a ruling on your point of order?  What is supposed to happen at the next meeting? 

You are correct Dr. Brown; I do not know for certain. Update: The meeting minutes do not reflect my motion to postpone. Now, I have to address that, also.   

Please let me know if I’ve adequately addressed your questions in my 10pm EST response posted above. 

13 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Hmm, I suppose that, by implication, there's been an appeal, and it's been postponed. That would be the only way to make sense of these events. You're under no obligation, if you don't want, to answer the email. If the issue is to come up at the next meeting, you could just say you'll debate it there. Or you can reply, whatever you think is most beneficial. If the problem really is knowledge, not evil intent, you could download one of those cards explaining the basic (available for purchase from NAP for about $3 for non-members) and email it to them with your reply.

All of you would be correct—to a degree (unfortunately). “Guest Who’s” response is most accurate while Dr. Brown and J. Katz have summarized the meeting mayhem quite nicely.

Yes, I appealed her “ruling” (more so denial). The subsidiary motion was to postpone the main motion and refer it to a (non-existent) bylaws committee. (It now exists) The issue is both intent AND knowledge (lack thereof) on the president’s part.

She admitted, she only created the standing rules document to add new officers: asst. treasurer and co-presidents. 💁🏽‍♀️

Those that came to her defense (I didn’t address her hand in this...only the conflicting documents) do not know parliamentary procedure though one assured me that “it IS in ‘the book’” until I offered her my copy to locate the reference. She then shouted a motion to make the “asst treasurer” the chairperson of a finance committee. (Yes, before the ruling on my Pt of Order or the main motion were ‘handled’) The president (among past presidents defending her) does not know or understand any of this...

Therefore—in re: her email—There is no point in addressing her need -to -know outside of a meeting. I read and repeated the rationale from type-written notes with corresponding, colored highlights of the bylaws vs. “standing rules.”

I had to explain “lay it on the table” and postponing (as options to move this along) any adoption to our Sept gathering (hardly a meeting) to be addressed as unfinished business.

[pardon typos/grammatical errors, i’M gLiTcHiNg)🤖

2 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

None of this procedure is proper. You raised a point of order. It should have been ruled on (probably not well taken) and you could have appealed. That would be when you explain why you believe the proposal violates the bylaws, not after the meeting.

I explained and quoted the bylaws during the meeting. Other board members asked clarifying questions. I addressed them all, point-by-point.

Hours later, I received an email request from the president (cc: entire exec committee), requesting I share (again) with her each conflict.

They are numerous. It is clear to me that she does not understand what standing rules are/can be. FYI...her “standing rules” and the bylaws are linked above in my original post.

UPDATE: The executive board met. I raised a Point of Order when the president asked for debate of the motion to adopt the “standing rules” documents. The room erupted.

I presented the rationale along with clear evidence, using the bylaws and RONR 11th ed, and the group *still* argued I had no basis. However, my motion tabled the adoption, and I recommended the formation of a bylaws committee to review the suspicious document.

Following the meeting, I’ve been asked by the president to explain to her why I “believe” her standing rules conflict with the bylaws. *sigh*

On 8/27/2018 at 11:40 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

And on the issue of co-anythings, RONR prohibits that as well, unless the bylaws provide for it.

And I think it's safe to say that among the regulars here, there is near if not total unanimity that this is a very bad idea.

Thank you, Gary. The unanimity was astounding—to me. 

I raised a Point of Order in the subsequent meeting to “adopt” said rules. I stood alone, figuratively and literally, but I presented the rationale along with clear evidence, using the bylaws and RONR 11th ed, and the group *still* argued I had no basis. However, my motion tabled the adoption, and also, I recommended the formation of a bylaws committee to review the suspicious document.

I’ve been asked by the president to explain to her why I “believe” her standing rules conflict with the bylaws. *sigh*

13 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

 I am recalling now from previous threads (like this one) that the state and national level PTAs tend to exert some pretty draconian controls over the rules that their constituent units may adopt, so you might also want to see what their rules say on this subject (the President’s proposals may well conflict with those rules as well). You could also consult with them - they might be interested in the President’s shenanigans.

I appreciate your thorough interpretation. You are spot-on in regard to the “shenanigans” in progress. Thank you for the advice. 

7 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

 

Agreeing with the response above by Dr. Kapul, I believe this provision from "Principles of Interpretation of Bylaws" starting on page 588 of RONR is what he was referring to.  This particular provision is # 4 and on pages 589-590. Note particularly the last sentence:

If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited. There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws [page 590] without some reason for it. There can be no valid reason for authorizing certain things to be done that can clearly be done without the authorization of the bylaws, unless the intent is to specify the things of the same class that may be done, all others being prohibited. Thus, where Article IV, Section I of the Sample Bylaws (p. 585) lists certain officers, the election of other officers not named, such as a sergeant-at-arms, is prohibited. "

 

Drs Kapul and Brown:

This reference is exactly the one I needed and makes for a much stronger Point of Order to raise as I anticipate the response, “...the bylaws don’t say I cannot...”

Please note, the president wants to ‘appoint’ an assistant treasurer to the executive committee.

11 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I think there are two issues here, unless I misread the original post. The second - standing rules cannot create officers - has been addressed. It is also the case that the President cannot (unless the rules say otherwise) create standing rules.

Thank you for your input. I wanted to address the “creation” issue as well.

1. In what ways can standing rules be created?

2. How are standing rules adopted?

12 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

If the president is reading the bylaws and does not seem to understand it, make sure you do not make the same mistake. Read everything carefully just in case there is some strange wording that does in fact give the president the power to create ad hoc committees or officers. Nevertheless, the wording you provided for your Point Of Order is just fine and you should not be embarrassed if the ruling goes against you, although it might throw you off your stride for a second. Good luck.

Duly noted. Thank you for your input!

19 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

Perhaps you can get a new president (see FAQ #20).

Hieu, 

I am inclined to agree. This attempt is one of many power grabs, unfortunately. 

6 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

The president has such authority only insofar as the bylaws provide it (RONR 11th ed., p. 456, ll. 27-28).

Thank you so much! This reference is most helpful! I wanted something formal  to print and present because she has demonstrated rogue leadership so far.

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

The provision for officers in your bylaws precludes the creation of any new offices without amending the bylaws. If your president moves to adopt her so-called standing rules, you may raise a point of order.

Thank you for responding. I would say, “Madame President: Point of Order. The provision for officers in our bylaws precludes the creation of any new offices without amending the bylaws.”  Is that the complete verbiage?

13 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Would not the answer be no, unless the bylaws authorize the president to create such positions, or words to that effect?

Exactly & I have said, “no” but she still intends to present the draft of standing rules at our first meeting. 

I want to be sure my point of order is clear as to WHY I have said, “no” since she insists on proceeding.