Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

DonnieCreekmore

Members
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

DonnieCreekmore's Achievements

  1. Hello Parliamentarians! Thank you in advance for your help here. I am curious how the relationship between our bylaws and RRON shake out in regard to the Chairman. What follows is the entire language within this organizations by-laws. SEC. 6.01: CHAIRMAN: The Chairman shall be the chief executive officer of the Central Committee and shall have general supervision and direction and control of the business and officers of the Central Committee. The Chairman shall be the chief spokesman for the XYZ Party in XYZ County. The Chairman shall preside at all regular and special meetings of the Central Committee, shall be an ex-officio member of all standing and special committees, and shall have such other powers and duties as may be prescribed by the Central Committee. The Chairman shall be responsible for providing a current copy of the by-laws to every member of the Central Committee. The Chairman shall be responsible for the preparation and distribution of the proposed notice and agenda for all regular and special meetings. END OF SECTION Does that little section of language supercede all of the language in RRON regarding a Chairman, for example, being a teacher, being neutral, not biased, upholding fairness, etc etc? example, a Chairman seeking to limit debate without asking the assembly and instead insisting two individuals can make an agreement to limit debate without a quorum present.. this is NOT in the bylaws... or entertaining a motion that violates the accused Constitutional rights where the motion woukd work directly against his 14th ammendment and sec 7 of the Ca constitution.. Thank you again for your assistance in this manner.
  2. Our executive meeting is to conduct business on behalf of the assembly in-between regular meetings. I am the 5th district chair by vote which makes me part of the executive committee and a officer. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th district chairs will be present, 4th district is currently without a chair. Our Chairman, Secretary, and Treasurer will also be present. The accuser is the chair from the 3rd district. I am the chair for the 5th district. The motion is set to be made on the 6th of next month at the regular meeting. That was part of the announcement by the chairman. My point being, if the by-laws say "the member with intent" must inform... but the chairman, the person who presides and is supposed to be neutral sends the notification, isn't that counter to the language in the by-laws? Also, the "cause" has not been disclosed in writing - it has just been a ever moving goal post the member moves whenever I try to please her. Its turned into a submit to the crown type scenario that makes me hold back my food. Yesterday I took the 2013 outdated bylaws, which were a scanned document, and converted them to a digital doc version that is much easier to read and navigate, then sent that and every link I have for RRON in an email to all members - something our bylaws say our Chairman is supposed to do but has not for the year or more I've been involved. So I did. I hope this helps clarify things a bit. I so appreciate all of your insight.
  3. Yeah, unfortunately the member is only doing this as a tactic to remove me, their feelings are not really hurt. They are using this as an opportunity. I called her and apologized for raising my voice and for wagging my finger at her, after her telling me this was the issue, but the apology was not accepted and she even said there was nothing I could do or say to change her mind. I am very good at debate, and she is very very poor. Constantly trying to bring her feelings into a debate over particulars and objectives. She has consistently made her self to look like a fool for things like opposing a resolution I put forth exclaiming the resolution lacks language that is within the document to a T. Basically opposing things because the Author and not the content. When her challenges are intellectually brought to there knees before everyone on a chain email, she says I am bullying her because I debate well. It has been a huge test of my patience. I am not a Board member I am an officer, the 5th District chair of my county's central committee. At the coming meeting, the member bringing this motion against me will be there, and like the many meetings that have transpired sense, I will behave myself like a gentlemen should. As much as I understand you in saying ignorance ought to not be a excuse for my behavior, once I learned the correct way to conduct myself, I have ever sense. So the by-laws supersede RRON making the Removal Of Officer clause take precedent over all language in RRON to that effect, this is really unfortunate. It seems RRON is way more equitable than our short by-law clause. What about the actual proceeding? Is this akin to other motions, i.e. every member gets a chance to speak on it once debate is engaged, etc? The chairman wants to limit debate to members the accused and accuser select in advance to a tune of 5 speakers ea for 5 min ea. I find this to be egregiously unfair of him to ask me, like I have the power to prevent members who'd like to debate, that opportunity to do so. Can anyone here speak toward the procedures that ought to be followed? What I posted from our bylaws is the full extent of the language regarding Removal of Officer Thank you everyone for the warm welcome and all the information this has been amazing to experience. I had very low expectations of getting a timely reply, and was shocked to my delight to have so many try to help me in such a short period. You all are great. thank you.
  4. Caution: The answers given here to the questions presented are based upon the rules contained in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. These rules are, in effect, default rules; that is to say, they govern only if there are no contrary provisions in any federal, state, or other law applicable to the society, or in the society’s bylaws, or in any special rules of order that the society has adopted. This fact must always be kept in mind when reading any of the answers given.
  5. How can a motion, that is itself a question of privilege, which therfore requires it to be urgent and disrupt ongoing business, be made an agenda item without that item then no longer fitting the defined text of a Question of Privilege? Also, can you explain how these bylaws supercede RRON by merely existing when RRON is supposed to take precedent wherever bylaws are silent? The way I've come to understand the bylaws to RRON relationship is that whatever exists in the bylaws only supercedes RRON when specified? I.e. the language there supercedes language in RRON about a trial, but does it supercede discipline within a meeting? Another question, our bylaws say the member ...with the intent... to bring the motion forward should send it to everyone, but it this case our Chairman did and then added it to the agenda of our next executive meeting? I am a chair at that meeting. The whole thing seems very disturbing to say the least. Thank you for your advice and answers this far friends,. Donnie
  6. Wow thank both of you for your speedy reply to this. I am the defendant in this situation. At an executive meeting months ago, before I had ever been distributed our By-Laws, and therefore before the moment where I learned they invoked RRON, which was also my first exposure to such information, I indeed spoke out of order, spoke toward members motives, and raised my voice a few times. These were obviously actions made in ignorance of proper procedure. The chairman failed to perform anything as defined in RRON under disciplinary procedures, and after the momentary issue, we went back to business, made decisions, and the meeting was adjourned. Fast forward, now that I've learned proper parliamentary procedure basics, and I have access to our by-laws as well, the member who I had questioned their motives etc at that executive meeting is NOW bringing this motion to remove me from the committee at our next regular meeting I feel like everything about this scenario is egregious and can not be the spirit of either the bylaws or RRON. For example, the Chairman, with only my agreement, was requesting we limit the amount of members who are able to speak for or against in debate to a decided value. I was appalled by this suggestion for simple fairness as well as the bad blood one might feel who would want to be picked to speak, but were chosen against due to the limitation. Unfortunately, the Chairman never distributed the by-laws as defined in the by-laws, something we learned only when the Treasurer scanned a printed copy that lacks some changes that have taken place since its printing. The entire Committee lacks anyone with any heavy skills with Parliamentary Procedure, either. I just received RRON 12th, my first exposure ever to this information, 3 weeks ago. I've been working hard ever since trying to learn. I used what I had learned to put forth a few resolutions for matters I believe in and want to the committee to debate, and shortly thereafter this request to remove me was submitted. I appreciate all of the advice my new friends, --Donnie Creekmore
  7. Hello all, In the instance where the following is all that can be found in an organizations bylaws regarding removal of an officer.. “Any officer may be removed for cause by a vote of the majority of all voting members of the central committee” “written/fax/or email notice by any voting member of such intent having been bailed/faxed/emailed to all members not less than 10 days prior to the date of the meeting where the motion to remove shall be made. Such motion shall be made at any regular or special meeting of membership. What of the following (or any left out in my blissful ignorance) RRON apply in the silence of the bylaws? Disciplinary Procedures, Discipline of Members and Guests, “Calling a Member to Order” ( RRON 12th, p.610 - 61:11 ) If the offense is more serious than in the case above as when a member repeatedly questions the motives of other members whom he mentions by name, Or persist in speaking on completely irrelevant matters in debate - the chair normally should first warn the member, but with or without such a warning, the chair or any other member can call the member to order. If the chair does this he says “the member is out of order and will be seated,” another member making the call rises without waiting to be recognized and says “Mr. President, I called the member to order.” “Well taken,” he declares the offender out of order and directs him to be seated just as above. If the offender had the floor then (irrespective of who originated the proceeding) the chair clearly states the breach involved and puts the question to assembly “shall the member be allowed to continue speaking?” This question is undebatable. 61:15: If the member obeys at this point, the matter can be dropped or not, as he assembly chooses. The case may be sufficiently resolved by an apology or a withdrawal of objectionable statements or remarks by the offender; but if not, any member can move to order a penalty, or the chair can first ask, “What penalty shall be imposed on the member?” A Motion offered in a case of this kind can propose, for example, that the offender be required to make an apology, that he be censured, that he be required to leave the hall during the remainder of the meeting or until he is prepared to apologize, that his rights of membership be suspended for a time, or that he be expelled from the organization. 61:17 “Expulsion from membership requires a two-thirds vote. 61:22 “In Addition, even when improper conduct occurs at a meeting, in order for disciplinary action to be taken other than promptly after the breach occurs, charges must be preferred and a formal trial held. However, the only way in which a member may be disciplined for words spoken in debate is through the procedure described in 61:10-18, which may be employed only promptly after the breach occurs. In some societies the same steps must also be employed if an officer of the society is to be removed from office. The procedure governing all such cases are described in detail in 63. “Removal of an Officer” is a Question of Privilege - ( RRON 12th p.618 - 62:16 ) “A motion to remove an officer from office is a question of privilege (19) affecting the organization of the assembly, and so also is the filling of any vacancy created by the adoption of such a motion.” Question of Privilege RRON 12th 212, 19.1 - To raise a question of privilege is a device that permits a request or main motion relating to the rights and privileges of the assembly or any of its members to be blocked up for possible immediate consideration because of its urgency while businesses is pending and their request for motion would otherwise not be in order. 63: Investigation and Trial: As explained in 61 and 62, the removal of an officer for cause, or the discipline of a member for improper conduct, may be required that charges be preferred and that a formal trial held. Foot Note 7: It is possible for a disciplinary proceeding to affect an individual’s status both as an officer and as a member, and a resolution preferring charges (see 63:13 - 63-20) may combine notice to show cause both why the accused should not be removed from office and why he should not be expelled from Membership. Steps in a Fair Disciplinary Process - 63:7, p.621 Most ordinary societies should never have to hold a formal trial, and their bylaws need to be encumbered with clauses on discipline. For the protection both of society and of its members and officers, however, the basic steps which in any organization make up the elements of a fair disciplinary process should be understood. Any special procedures established should be built essentially around them and the steps must be followed in the absence of such provisions. As set forth below these are: 1: confidential investigation by a committee 2: report of the committee and preferred all charges if warranted 3: formal notification of the accused 4: trial 5: the assembly's review of the trial committee's findings (if the trial has been held in a committee instead of the assembly of the society.) Also - is it even possible for this Question of Privilege to be an Agenda Item? Is it proper to discuss this at an executive meeting where, of the few members present, are the party with intent to bring this question of privilege and the alleged offender? How would you advise the alleged offender proceed?
×
×
  • Create New...