Controverial Motions

[Guest George]

We have an member who interprets Roberts Rules as, there needs to be previous notice given to any controversial motion that another member intends to bring forward. Without a previous notice, the member would argue that the motion is out of order, giving reference to where it says that the governing body must also represent absent members when a (possible) minority group try to push through their agenda.

Q1. If this member is wrong, how can someone block this stalemate?

Q2. And who is the final authority?

Q3. Would the membership have to try to have that person removed from office? Our constitution doesn't address removal of officers and as I read RONR, the only provision to remove an officer is at an election.

I agree that previous notice SHOULD be given on controversial motions, but as I understand it, it isn't required. And I also agree that the Exec needs to represent absent members; but what exactly does that mean? Thanks.

[Chris Harrison]

Q1. If this member is wrong, how can someone block this stalemate?

There is no stalemate to start off with. The member can raise a Point of Order, the Chair can (presumably) rule the Point Not Well Taken, the member can Appeal that ruling (a second would be needed) and the assembly will decide who is right. See RONR pp. 240-252.

Q2. And who is the final authority?

See my above answer.

Q3. Would the membership have to try to have that person removed from office?

No need to do that. The member is clearly wrong (and I would challenge him or her to show me some citation to back up that claim).

Our constitution doesn't address removal of officers and as I read RONR, the only provision to remove an officer is at an election.

RONR has a whole chapter dedicated to discipline. See RONR Chapter XX.

I agree that previous notice SHOULD be given on controversial motions, but as I understand it, it isn't required. And I also agree that the Exec needs to represent absent members; but what exactly does that mean?

RONR doesn't even suggest that previous notice should be given for controversial motions (besides who decides what is controversial?) As for protecting the rights of absentee members that would be talking about when previous notice is actually required or actions being taken when a quorum isn't present. As far as RONR is concerned the only time that previous notice is absolutely required is when a vacancy is to be filled (you can't accept a resignation or note an officer's ineligibility for that office and then immediately fill the vacancy)