Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'bylaws issue'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • RONR Message Board – Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised
    • General Discussion
    • Advanced Discussion
    • The Robert’s Rules Website
  • About the Message Board
    • Questions or Comments about the Message Board
  • Archive
    • Archived Discussions (2010)

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location:


Interests

Found 4 results

  1. We are debating and voting on amendments to our bylaws, and I have a couple issues I could really, really use some help on. Our bylaws state the 2/3 threshold applies to “voting members present and voting,” quoted here (with the name of our organization redacted): //content.invisioncic.com/r127373/monthly_2022_03/E996D3A9-B7C7-4EEB-9570-43AE693A0433.thumb.jpeg.33281c16ee2a986d4c10304280cd3f5a.jpeg However, when we held a vote, abstentions were counted in the calculation for the total number to reach the 2/3 threshold. The proposed amendment failed to pass by 1 vote, but included in those calculations were 9 abstentions. At the time, the parliamentarian announced the result, and someone immediately motioned to postpone the other discussions until the next business meeting. To me, that calculation was in error, as “voting members present and voting” seems pretty clear that abstentions shouldn’t count. “Voting” implies taking an action, and this was a zoom call where abstentions took NO action (honestly we’re not even sure all of them were still there. Some of their cameras and mics were off). I have reached out to the other committee members in charge of the vote (I’m also on the bylaws committee), and brought this to their attention. However, while they agree that an abstention is NOT a vote, they still feel that abstentions should be part of the overall count. I’m honestly very confused as to why… I suspect that since this was a very contentious debate, and also both of them were personally against the proposed amendment, they’re very reluctant to reopen the issue. (For the record, they’re not bad people! I just think they are likely dismissing my concerns rather than taking the time and effort to review it fairly.) I have quoted the relevant sections of Roberts Rules - how the 2/3 vote works, how “and voting” in the Rules directly mirrors our Bylaws language (or vice versa), how members have a right to abstain without their vote counting towards a “No.” I’m honestly at a loss as to what else I can do, or what other references I can provide to them. So the first question is - does anyone have any other references that explain in plain English how and why abstentions are not included in the 2/3 vote threshold calculation? Or that confirm the words “present and voting” in our bylaws mean only counting votes that are cast, and not abstentions? Second question - if I do convince them that we did the calculation incorrectly, can we simply recalculate it after subtracting the number of abstentions? Or would that vote be invalidated and we’d have to hold it again? Third question - if I can’t convince the parliamentarian and the committee privately that this was done incorrectly and we need to fix it, what is the best way to address it before the membership? - keeping in mind that we postponed further debate on the amendments until the next meeting, DIRECTLY after the result was announced. - from reading, I’m assuming I could make a point of order as soon as the next business meeting opens, and then if the Parliamentarian doesn’t sustain it I could Appeal to put it to a vote of the membership? I am worried about timeliness though. The point of order is supposed to be made immediately after the result is announced, but there wasn’t an opportunity before the motion to postpone. If that wouldn’t qualify as “immediately,” then would section 23.6, example E apply and provide an exception to the timeliness requirement? The one that discusses breaches of a continuing nature, and the example includes “a rule protecting a basic right of an individual member.” Namely, in this case, the right of abstention. I think we have an ethical obligation to correct this, especially since it affected the outcome of the vote. Any possible help you can give me would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time!
  2. Hi, and thank you in advance for your assistance. I am in a society who is bound by Roberts Rules. I am chair of the Bylaws Committee. In working in this committee and going over the bylaws it became apparent that our chapter's use of bylaws was very lax. Our society is a closed society, meaning that one makes an application with recommendation of 2 current members, and is approved by national. It is my understanding that with this provision, meetings are to be members only. Over the years that our chapter has been in existence it has allowed non-members to attend all parts of a meetings: business as well as program/social portions. Because of the difficulty in getting members back on track by having members only attend meetings it was decided to amend our meeting bylaws to be specific: Meetings are to be members only, except with prior approval of the regent. This has caused much anxiety and more postponements of a vote because of the ongoing questioning of those apposed to being strictly members only. The latest discussion asked for direct wording contained in national's bylaws, stating that if it doesn't appear there, the amending of the meetings portion of the bylaws cannot be done. There are no such specific words in national bylaws because it is accepted that our organization is not a public one. Or am I incorrect in that assumption?
  3. THE TRAP IN RRONR-11's SAMPLE BYLAWS: Robert's Sample Bylaws contain a Trap! Article V, Section 1, states that "The regular meetings of the Society shall be held on the second Tuesday of each month from September to May inclusive, unless otherwise ordered by the Society" -- that is, the Society has the power to change the date of an individual regular meeting at need. (And, BTW, kudos to them for adding the word "inclusive"!) This is perfectly fine. BUT, the Trap comes in Section 2: "The regular meeting on the second Tuesday in April shall be known as the annual meeting, and shall..." Take note! By specifying an exact day ("second Tuesday in April"), this provision unwittingly removes the Society's power to alter the meeting date in the particular case of the annual meeting, because this provision requires that the annual meeting must be held on the second Tuesday in April! This has long been a pet peeve of mine! Excising a mere four words corrects this: "I hereby move to amend Article V, Section 2 of the Sample Bylaws, by striking out the words 'on the second Tuesday.' " That leaves us with, "The regular meeting in April shall be known as the annual meeting, and shall...," ...Which is perfectly fine, because the term "regular meeting" is already defined in Section 1. Better still, by not specifying any specific day for that "regular meeting," this wording preserves the Society's power, at need, to change the date even of the annual meeting. And, by the way -- it's much better to use "must" or "will," rather than "shall." --TheGrandRascal
  4. If the bylaws are not specific, what then? For instance, bylaws require someone running for Officer have served one term on the board, However, it doesn't say the current board or board in the past.
×
×
  • Create New...