Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'points of order'.
Found 2 results
Our small organization has a conundrum that is not addressed by our bylaws. We defer to Robert's Rules in that case, so this is the situation. Our VP has been absent for more than three consecutive board meetings placing him out of order according to our bylaws. Our President brought this topic up to him back in May and informed him that he may be asked to leave the board under these circumstances. His response: "Do what you need to do." As far as we know, she never made that official pronouncement. Fast forward. Our last meeting was in May, then the June meeting was cancelled by agreement. In June and July the board failed to gather a quorum, so the meetings could not be held. Now, our President has resigned effective immediately, handing the reins to our out of order VP. We have asked for an emergency meeting of remaining board members to be called, but we hear nothing from the VP. Yes, we have a mess on our hands. We would like to go ahead and call that meeting and not wait for the VP. Time is of the essence and he has been AWOL for most of 2019. What is our point of order in this situation? We are a little stumped. Thanks for your input.
I work in law and in that field there is something known as a declaratory action in which there is a present relationship (usually contractual) between parties and a dispute is patently unavoidable making the parties unsure of their rights and unable to proceed without prejudice. They can then ask the Court to declare their rights. This is a narrow exception to the idea that a court cannot issue an advisory opinion- i.e. there cannot be sheer speculation, there has to be a clear and imminent dispute that is nearly certain to occur (that is really basic but you get the idea). Is there an equivalent in parliamentary proceedings? If a controversy comes up that entails a whole set of related controversies that are inextricably linked to the present controversy yet those facets are not yet happening - but very likely could - can a Chair make or can members request a declaratory ruling? i.e. basically, in such a such situation, this is how I will rule. Then the parties know where they stand and can plan how they wish to act accordingly. And if so, such a thing would not be appealable correct? Because it is anticipatory. The part of the ruling that effects a live point of dispute would be. Or imagine a situation in which a member states their position that they have a right to do something but hasn't yet done it. Another member believes they cannot. Is that ripe at that point?Or does the actual act have to happen first. What if the member states that and the chair advises the member that would be ruled out of order... is that yet a point of order or does the act have to be committed and disallowed first? What if the matter of whether it will be disallowed or not is important to continue the vote? Yes I have got myself in a thick quagmire.