Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Betty Heim

Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Betty Heim's Achievements

  1. I got it - I belong to an organization that follows its own unethical rules. Sad đŸ˜¢
  2. Throwing this useless book away. Thanks. So much for NO Motion is in order if it conflicts with a constitution, bylaws or Roberts Rules. Null and void if it does. So this somehow does not include motions to amend. Sorry I took the words to mean All motions. this is my last reply - no need for any more responses - I got my answer thank you.
  3. I am using the latest edition of Roberts Rules. I believe you have answered my question. So we have a book of rules, but no enforcer outside of the organization in which I belong. The pages I referred to -page 343 Improper motions, page 111 no main motion is in order that conflicts..., page 407 one person, one vote, and Abstaning from voting on a question of direct interest. "No member can be compelled to refrain from voting..." So you all do not see anything wrong with an Admendment that states that if you are a relative or employee of an officer who has a business agreement with the club that they must not participate in any discussion or vote on any motion before the assembly. Wow!! So much for No member can be compelled to refrain from voting on any matter.. and if an organization is the only authority that polices itself it's the fox that that is in charge of the hen house. Might as well pitch this book.....since if an organization can do as it pleases by putting anything the wish in the bylaws.
  4. Is there anyone that you can go to to file a complaint? Anyone who enforces Roberts Rules of Order?
  5. Robert - I disagree on your example. If they wanted to change the day to meet from the third Wednesday of the month to second Tuesday in order to avoid the conflict they would rescind the first reference of the bylaw and replace it with the second one. Besides this would not conflict with Roberts Rules in any way.
  6. One part of the bylaws states that all members have a right to vote on each matter before the membership. It also states that any member can run for office. now they original wording was not removed. The new addition states that no member can run for office that has a for profit business. And that if an officer as a for profit business, he must recuse himself from voting on the matter, as well as any employee or relative of the officer who has a for profit business arrangement, the employee or immediate relative cannot participate in any discussion or voting on the matter. not only does it conflict with the bylaws and Roberts Rules it infringes on the voting rights of all members to vote on all matters. i want to know who governs Roberts Rules that one can register a complaint. Roberts Rules states that Officers should refrain from voting on such matters pertains to a business arrangement, however no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances. Under voting - Roberts states each member is entitled to one vote on each matter before the assembly. Now surely the rules - Roberts Rules intend for all members to have a right to vote and now the addition to the bylaws infringes on those rules.
  7. So why does Roberts Rules state that even if a motion is adopted it is out of order and null and void... It seems to me it isn't permissible or else Roberts Rules would not state this.
  8. What happens when the body adopts a motion - change to a bylaw that conflicts with both the bylaws and Roberts Rules of order. I pointed out to the membership that even if a motion conflicts with both that it is out of order and null and void. I motioned to suspend indefinitely the bylaw change motion. My motion failed. Their motion for the conflicting bylaw change passed. So now what?? Is there a place I can file a complaint. Any recourse? What does one do when the membership and the executive board refuse to follow Roberts Rules? Our bylaws state that Roberts Rules supersedes anything not contained in the bylaws. Help! What can be done?
  9. I read somewhere that RONR - there is a rule that when a motion conflicts with a constitution, rule or bylaw that it is null and void. getting back to previous posts, current bylaws permit members to run for office who have been members for at least a year. It also permits all members the right to vote on all matters. For voting rights it is consistent with Roberts Rules. now the addition or proposed change conflicts with these rights as I see it. How can a bylaw have two different rules that conflict each other. Which do you follow? The new proposed change is to be placed at the end of the bylaws. The previous rights ARE NOT being removed. i would think if this proposed change is rarified and put into the bylaws it would create a nightmare. my question - page 16 of Roberts Rules - Newly Revised 11th edition does address this. But the wording is such only a lawyer can understand it. I think I am right that you cannot restrict voting rights. Page 407 of Roberts Rules one person one vote - it is a fundamental principal of preliminary law that each person who is a member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one vote and only one vote on a question. Also if the vote accepts this change - where can I appeal it? Where does one go to have it resolved? What recourse is there?
  10. The proposed bylaw change was drafted by an officer who wishes to prevent another officer from running for re-election. Since the language affects members voting an all matters before the assembly, I needed confirmation that it violates Roberts Rules. Also in the current bylaws Article V: meetings 5.5 "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall take precedence in any question on procedure on points of order not covered in these bylaws." also Article III membership 3.6 Voting - "Each annual, life, and spouse member will be entitled to one vote on each matter submitted to a vote by the membership." now this new proposed bylaw change is to be added (if ratified by 2/3's of the membership) as Article XIII Conflict of Interest. This leaves 3.6 Voting still in tact, and leaves Article VII Election of officers 8.3 Qualifications for office -"Any member nominated for office in the club must been a member for at least twelve months prior to the December election......." i think there are too many conflicts between what is currently in the bylaws and the proposed addition/change. i was thinking on pointing out these conflicts during debate and afterwards move to postpone indefinitely. Any other suggestions?
  11. now a proposed bylaw change is being considered and up for a vote next meeting. It states "No Club Officer may engage in a for-profit business arrangement with the club." "Any Club Officer who is employed by, or is an immediate relative of, a person or company which has a for-profit business arrangement, or with whom such a business arrangement I'd proposed, will recuse themselves from any discussion of or vote concerning that business arrangement or proposed business arrangement." "No member who has a for-profit business arrangement with the club, or is the immediate relative of a person who has a business arrangement, or is employed by a person or company who has such a business arrangement, will be eligible to run for election to a club office." i want to know if this proposed change conflicts with Roberts Rules of order? Under current bylaws any member with one year of membership is able to run for office. This change is proposed to prevent certain members from running for office and I believe infringes on the rights of all members to vote on all matters. I would appreciate any help or suggestions and a speedy response would be appreciated as a this will be up for a vote soon.
×
×
  • Create New...