Throwing the rules out the window

[Wayne P]

Well, our worst fears were realized on Thursday. A special general membership meeting was held at our request to vote on 10 new amendments to our Bylaws and Constitution. Notice of the amendments had been properly served in accordance of our Bylaws. Many of the amendments dealt with a selection process for a full time Administrator, removal of a member from office, limiting unbudgeted expenditures, filling vacancies on the Board etc. The Board posted their own agenda, contrary to the agenda that we had posted over a month ago. We called a point of order on the agenda issue, which was denied by the President. An appeal to the membership was lost. The Board stacked the audience with supporters and sympathizers. Only 88 members of our 620 member association bothered showing up. Before we were able get to vote on the amendments to the bylaws, one of the supporters tabled a motion to refer a complete review of the amendments to a committee made up of Board members alone one year from now, long after a new Administrator will be selected By the Board as the Bylaws currently state.

We again called a point of order on allowing a new motion to be called that was not on the agenda. Again the President over ruled and an appeal to the membership failed. Despite the violations of our own Bylaws and the parliamentary procedures that binds our Board and membership, the Board effectively threw out the rules and carried on business as usual. Where can we go from here?

[hmtcastle]

Only 88 members of our 620 member association bothered showing up. . . . Where can we go from here?

You could start a new organization.

Some would argue that the members who stayed home voted with their feet. That is, they are sufficiently satisfied with the status quo.

Your problem seems more political than parliamentary. You need more votes.

By the way, if your quorum requirement had been, say, 15% (or greater), you would have had no quorum.

[David A Foulkes]

The Board stacked the audience with supporters and sympathizers. Only 88 members of our 620 member association bothered showing up. Before we were able get to vote on the amendments to the bylaws, one of the supporters tabled a motion ...

Now, when you say "supporters and sympathizers", I get the sense of people who are not members. But it appears this is not the case, then?

[Wayne P]

You could start a new organization.

Some would argue that the members who stayed home voted with their feet. That is, they are sufficiently satisfied with the status quo.

Your problem seems more political than parliamentary. You need more votes.

By the way, if your quorum requirement had been, say, 15% (or greater), you would have had no quorum.

Thankyou, I believe you recognize the problem of apathy. At our January membership meeting, 250 pissed off people showed up in the middle of a snowstorm and voiced their disgust with the Board. Our administrator quit that evening when the Board was challenged about allowing him going part time. In less than six weeks the mood has changed and now the current Board has been given "permission" to behave badly by the most vocal (not majority) of it's members. Many of our members are living in a comfort zone and are afraid of upsetting the status quo. If our members start losing wages and benefits in the next round of arbitration or negotiations, the mood will change quickly. You are right about the quorum, even if we had been permitted to vote on the amendemnts, we would not have had the 60% needed. Thank you again, this forum has been a great help.

[David A Foulkes]

Many of our members are living in a comfort zone and are afraid of upsetting the status quo.

And until that happens, it's status quo. Unfortunately, the way things seem to be going with your organization, when the time comes to do something about it, the rules will have been changed to disempower the membership in ways they won't even know about. The Board will have given themselves exclusive authority to amend the bylaws without the membership's knowledge or approval, they will set the membership quorum too high to ever be meet, voting thresholds set impossibly high, and ultimately empower the Board with exclusive life-long rights to govern the affairs of the society. Too "1984"-ish? Maybe. You'll let us know.

[loose]

Thankyou, I believe you recognize the problem of apathy. At our January membership meeting, 250 pissed off people showed up in the middle of a snowstorm and voiced their disgust with the Board. Our administrator quit that evening when the Board was challenged about allowing him going part time. In less than six weeks the mood has changed and now the current Board has been given "permission" to behave badly by the most vocal (not majority) of it's members. Many of our members are living in a comfort zone and are afraid of upsetting the status quo. If our members start losing wages and benefits in the next round of arbitration or negotiations, the mood will change quickly. You are right about the quorum, even if we had been permitted to vote on the amendemnts, we would not have had the 60% needed. Thank you again, this forum has been a great help.

[loose]

Well, our worst fears were realized on Thursday. A special general membership meeting was held at our request to vote on 10 new amendments to our Bylaws and Constitution. Notice of the amendments had been properly served in accordance of our Bylaws. Many of the amendments dealt with a selection process for a full time Administrator, removal of a member from office, limiting unbudgeted expenditures, filling vacancies on the Board etc. The Board posted their own agenda, contrary to the agenda that we had posted over a month ago. We called a point of order on the agenda issue, which was denied by the President. An appeal to the membership was lost. The Board stacked the audience with supporters and sympathizers. Only 88 members of our 620 member association bothered showing up. Before we were able get to vote on the amendments to the bylaws, one of the supporters tabled a motion to refer a complete review of the amendments to a committee made up of Board members alone one year from now, long after a new Administrator will be selected By the Board as the Bylaws currently state.

We again called a point of order on allowing a new motion to be called that was not on the agenda. Again the President over ruled and an appeal to the membership failed. Despite the violations of our own Bylaws and the parliamentary procedures that binds our Board and membership, the Board effectively threw out the rules and carried on business as usual. Where can we go from here?

Wayne,

I am not a parliamentarian but I am a fighter!in your same boat. My board is planning next meeting to remove RR from its bylaws thinking that this will relieve them of obligation to any authority. My plan is to give them a mini lecture on basic parliamentary procedure and when they shoot me down I will not resign. I will stick to them like glue and broken record them at opportune moments: 1) vote before adopt proposal 2) debate before vote 3) make motion before debate. I think I can shame them over time to get hang of basics.