Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'protocol'.
Found 4 results
At our board meeting, we had 2 fundraising proposals come up. The first was presented - discussed - a motion made and seconded - discussion - voted upon. It was voted to be tabled until the next meeting because members were confused by the proposal and wanted to see paperwork on it. The second proposal went through the same process as the first (presented - discussed - a motion made and seconded - discussion - voted upon), but this time we had a role call vote. The vote was 5 for and 3 against, no one abstained. Today one of the members who had voted against it claims that we have broken the protocol we set by voting to table the first proposal and now have a conflict because the second. which also lacked paperwork, was accepted. I am a non-voting member of the board, and while I was disappointed they had voted for the second proposal, I do not feel the vote on the first proposal set a precedent for the second. The person who has brought up this issue now claims that we are liable because we tabled one and not the other. He is calling for another meeting to rescind the second vote and strike it from the minutes. This doesn't seem right to me, but I am not an expert on this. I would appreciate your input.
My organization has a situation where last year's President publicly challenges the current President's ideas/strategy/vision, etc. Even though this is not done in a vindictive manner, it seems to be creating roadblocks to getting some things accomplished. I thought that there was a time-honored tradition where past presidents did not openly challenge the current president for just this reason. However, i cannot find any reference to this in Roberts Rules. It does seem to me to cause problems for this to go on since the past President was popular with a faction of the group. Is there anything in Roberts Rules (or any other documentation) that defines this protocol? Note: our group does not have the official position of Immediate Past President. The Past President in question is now a regular member, but still has a certain following.
Guest posted a topic in General DiscussionMy Vice President of our Fire Company Auxiliary just submitted her resignation as VP. What is proper procedure of replacing a person for this position?
Our organization is facing what is going to be a very volatile meeting: our president and two of her friends appointed themselves the bylaws committee and have written an entirely new set of bylaws that they wish our club to adopt. The Board of Directors voted unanimously to not accept these new bylaws (the president did not vote), but according to our current bylaws, all bylaws revisions must go before the general membership for a vote. The motion to accept any bylaws changes must pass by a 2/3 vote. Here is the problem, at our board meeting last night, the president announced that she will run the meeting according to HER rules, and not RRoO. I pointed out that our bylaws state that we are governed by RRoO. She stated that she is going to limit each member to only asking questions, and that they must either email them to her in advance or write them down prior to the meeting. I told her that she cannot do this (some of our members do not even have email). Am I correct? Also, she said that, other than asking a question, no one will be recognized from the floor - so she is attempting to stop anyone from voicing an opinion or actually debating the issue. Again, she cannot do this, correct? She said that she will allow each member to speak for only one minute - I told her that according to RRoO, each member can speak twice, for 10 minutes, unless a motion is made and passed by the majority limiting the time. Am I right? Also, with her "question and answer session," are the members of the bylaws committee (the opposing side) then bound by the same rules as the rest of the general membership and allowed to speak only twice and for a limited time? Finally, I told her that if she plans to speak regarding the motion or participate in the debate in any way, she must recuse herself as chair and allow the vice-president to run the meeting. I also told her that if she does recuse herself to speak (and then she has the same limits regarding length of time and can take the floor only the same number of times as the general membership is allowed), she cannot resume her chair until AFTER the vote is taken and the results read. Again, am I correct? Thank you kindly.