James Brown

Thank you Mr. Honemann. I appreciate your input. I agree with all of your points in this comment. Hopefully this thread will help someone else, God forbid they ever have an issue like this…

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this topic. I would add that the parents have also been in touch with a CPP-T and the CPP-T believes that - with the Chair refusing to recognize the member’s right to run for the board - that those actions are grounds for legal action. The removed parents are seriously considering this option.

@Joshua Katz, I understand. After being a part of this program for 10+ years, I was naive enough to believe that the organization did wish to be fair and efficient. I was basically laughed and jeered “off stage”.

Mr. Honemann, I have sent you the link via the email option on this forum.

I must also add that the chair was not the president, it was a member of the Nominating Committee. Not sure if that’s relevant but there it is. In addition not only was the Point of Order ignored I was told that now was not the appropriate time or place to bring it up and that the board had already dealt with the parents. When the matter of not allowing the parents to run for office came up, the chair grew very irate and raised his voice at me in front of the assembly, saying that the nomination committee “will NOT allow them to run for the board!”. He went on to say that they were “unfit to run for the board” and that he was backed by the bylaws. He claimed that due to the Committee being tasked to find the best candidate for each office, he and the board had the authority to deny the parents the opportunity to run. He referenced a line in our bylaws that states: “SECTION 1 THE DUTIES OF THE NOMINATING (hereinafter referred to as “The Committee”) The duty of The Committee is to find the best candidate(s) for each office.” I am truly at a loss here. The meeting did not go as hoped at all. It was a free for all, without structure of any kind. This was a gut shot for the removed parents as they feel more oppressed than ever. For those who are interested, the current president kept their seat by 1 vote. So the culture will continue…

So… the meeting was a mess and was shut down and the motion was tabled for a later date. There was a large group of supporters for the board president who wouldn’t let me talk. I was treated as an annoyance. Proper decorum was not being followed. In the words of one supporter, “They came in force with a powerful sense of ignorance fueled entitlement.” The parents were told this was not the time to bring up the issue and that the present members didn’t know anything about the situation or the Bylaws or RONR and that they didn’t want to deal with it tonight. The removed parents were also told that they were not allowed to be nominated for a board position because the nomination committee said the parents were unfit to be on the board. This is a mess and I am beat down… Going to lick my wounds and think on this…

Never mind @Richard Brown - I just read your edited comment. Thank you.

If the chair’s decision is sustained, does that effectively “kill” the motion? As in permanently?

Thank you!

A majority, not 3/4ths? And do you mean Section 24 on Appeals?

@Josh Martin - ELECTION IN 50 minutes Ok… 1. I rise for a Point of Order for the board exceeding their authority per Section 23:9. 2. The chair finds the Point of Order “not well taken”. 3. A member stands and Appeals the chair’s decision. A 2nd member stands and seconds the Appeal. What happens next? a) Vote to amend/rescind the action to make it null and void? b) Debate?

Thank you Mr. Martin! I also saw 25:11 earlier and on further reading agree that it is applicable regarding the board’s actions in depriving members of their rights.

Yes, my apologies. 23:9

@Dan Honemann - in your post on March 30th where you referenced Section 23:9, which instances (a, b, c, d, or e) do you feel are applicable to the members belief that the board has exceeded its authority? I am leaning towards a) and c). Please correct me if I’m wrong. @Josh Martin, @Gary Novosielski, @Richard Brown

To be totally honest, in my experiences with the members of the board, they do not seem to have a good grasp or understanding of our bylaws or RONR and admittedly so… It is only due to this situation that they have employed (as they see fit) aspects of the bylaws, RONR and now the Code of Conduct to fulfill their agenda. It is my belief that I could go into this meeting tonight and observe ZERO procedures per RONR or our bylaws and no one would be none the wiser. And because they lack knowledge of these procedures, they would have nothing to come back with. For example: After their meeting with the parents, where the parents addressed the fact that the board had not followed procedures the board took 7 days to reply with their rationale. In their explanation they could only produce more excuses, and honestly more damaging evidence against themselves for the actions they have taken over the last several months. Long story short, I do not believe that the board is prepared to handle or address this matter. Despite this, I will be following the bylaws and RONR procedures to the best of my ability. As for the removed parents, they are unsure at this point if they want to run for office. So for the 2nd (“second one”) option, despite the fact that the board wrongly declared them ineligible to run, that isn’t a guaranteed avenue. For my part, I believe the option of making a motion is possibly more viable.

Mr. Honemann, I appreciate all of your assistance in this topic. Thank you for the additional feedback. 🙂 Ultimately, my goal is that this matter be brought to light. Someone recently told me that “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”. In the several years I’ve been a part of this mostly wonderful program there has NEVER been a situation like this. The meeting tonight will be a first for MANY. It can potentially get ugly. My goal is to avoid the drama, and bring to light the facts of the matter. Mainly that regardless of the personality issues between members of the board and members of the organization, bylaws were not followed, parliamentary procedures were ignored, and the rights of members have been abridged or even violated. I’ve never addressed the boosters in this type of setting before. I am nervous. Many prayers are being made today I can assure you 😅

Thank you for the clarification!

So… this needs to be in 2 parts, or one or the other? Regarding the motion to make the board’s disciplinary actions null and void: “my advice would be that you make a motion at the upcoming annual meeting that the actions which were taken by the Board in this connection (describing them in some detail) are null and void, and if this motion is not adopted, that you then move to have these actions rescinded.” Regarding the board not allowing the members to run for office - if they choose - that is where calling the Point of Order comes in to play?

There is not. We have only the Bylaws. As I’ve stated before, in 2019 we had 6 “general booster meetings” included in our bylaws. In 2021, those were removed and now we have ONLY the Election meeting and the Annual budget meeting. All other meetings are board meetings, and they are relentless about keeping it that way. The board has been incredibly difficult to “pin down” for any type of meeting.

Since the meeting is an election I’m not sure that any business will be discussed… I want to properly follow procedure, and welcome advice on how to do so.

I believe this is a suitable example of how the Point of Order could be raised at the meeting tomorrow… “Point of Order is raised due to the board exceeding its authority, ignoring our bylaws and parliamentary procedures. In addition they have made damaging decisions based on personality conflicts that have resulted in members having their rights improperly abridged. Examples of these violations per Section 23:6 in RONR (12th edition) include removing members as volunteers, ignoring the rights of the members up to and including running for a position on the band board. Although the board has REPEATEDLY claimed that they do have the authority to discipline members, they do not. There is NOTHING in our bylaws supporting this false and misleading claim, and there is NOTHING in RONR to support their claims either. Due to these improper actions, I am making a motion that these improper decisions be made null and void, per Section 23:9 in RONR (12th edition).” I highly suspect at this point that the chair will find the Point of Order “not well taken” - if they’re even aware of how to properly address the situation. Another member will rise and appeal the chair’s position, at which time the question is taken from the chair and vested in the assembly for final decision per Section 24:1. I believe this is the proper way to do this… Where I’m lacking confidence in is the next steps as it deals with debate, no debate, voting, etc. Is there debate after the Point of Order is called, or is there simply a vote to make the bad decisions null and void?

@Gary Novosielski, thank you! I will definitely reach out. Based on the suggestions in this topic and what I have been reading in RONR so far, I feel I have a decent understanding.

“Special rules of order, standing rules, combinations”…? Would the “Code” need to be designated as such? Or included in the Bylaws as a subsection?

“There is no doubt that the bylaws supersede the Code of Conduct. To the extent that this document was properly adopted as a rule of the society, however, it would take precedence over RONR. If the code was properly adopted, the fact that the code has not been adhered to is immaterial. Lots of organizations improperly ignore their rules for years. Nonetheless, the rules are still binding, and can should begin to be enforced as soon as possible, unless and until the organization rescinds or amends the rules.” @Josh Martin - Thank you! That’s what I was trying to figure out… @Dan Honemann - my apologies. My wording in my question to you was confusing. Thank you both for your patience. I just want to get this right. The meeting is tomorrow night. I personally believe that the removal of the parents was harassment in the guise of discipline. There are several parents who share in this belief. We all want to get it right tomorrow and moving forward.