Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Bylaws Revison complete moves to C&BL Committee


lipets

Recommended Posts

This is a long saga going on since September, many ups and downs have been reported here.

We finished the Revision and it moves forward for a vote in June at the general meeting but it needed to presented to the C&BL Standing Committee (one person)

A special committee was appointed by the Exec Board to write a Revision of the Bylaws the committee did not include the current Constitution and Bylaws standing committee.

Our current Constitution pertaining to amendments to the constitution requires the standing committee provide Headquarters with a written report containing its recommendations. The Revision was sent to him. We on the special committee thought it was only to make recommendations as to technical errors and omissions but….

His report recommended the Revision not be adopted stating it was in violation of Robert’s Rules of Order (10th edition, page 474, lines 28 through 30) from the beginning: “A special committee may not be appointed to perform a task that falls within the assigned function of an existing standing committee”.

The Bylaws only refers to the standing committee role to make an ongoing review and recommendations……….nothing mentioned about a Revision. It was not an assigned function.

He went on for pages about each and every revise portion about 90% was changed he went on for 10 pages.

Finally ending with a warning not to listen to comments from others and claiming how bad this Revision is and the folks on the committee were not qualified.

Sound like he’s not happy not being a part of the Revision, and is now striking out.

What if anything would you suggest doing?

I want strike his comments from the record, as out of order.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want strike his comments from the record, as out of order.

Comments don't belong in the record in the first place, so there's nothing to strike.

In any event, he's presented his report. So move on.

The proposed changes to the constitution can be evaluated on their own merits, whether they were the result of a legitimate process or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His report recommended the Revision not be adopted stating it was in violation of Robert’s Rules of Order (10th edition, page 474, lines 28 through 30) from the beginning: “A special committee may not be appointed to perform a task that falls within the assigned function of an existing standing committee”.

The Bylaws only refers to the standing committee role to make an ongoing review and recommendations……….nothing mentioned about a Revision. It was not an assigned function.

It seems to me comments on a complete revision to the Bylaws certainly fall under the scope of making an "ongoing review and recommendations" regarding the Bylaws. I think he's absolutely right.

What if anything would you suggest doing?

Nothing. The general membership is free to follow or ignore his recommendations.

I want strike his comments from the record, as out of order.

I'm not sure why you think his comments are out of order.

They are not just general comments they are his "recommendations" which will go out to all members along with a copy of Revised bylaws

You said that the role of the Constitution and Bylaws committee is to make recommendations regarding the Bylaws. It looks like he's just doing his job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His report recommended the Revision not be adopted stating it was in violation of Robert’s Rules of Order (10th edition, page 474, lines 28 through 30) from the beginning: “A special committee may not be appointed to perform a task that falls within the assigned function of an existing standing committee”.

Yes, he's right. I was thinking of that very rule as I was reading your explanation; then you mentioned it. It sounds like any changes to the bylaws ought to have gone through the standing committee. A "Revision" is just one type of amendment, not a different animal entirely.

And since he knew that and the special committee apparently did not, it makes me think he might do a better job than they would of writing bylaws. But that may be water under the bridge at this point. He could probably raise a point of order that the report of the special committee should not be received. But it sounds like it may be too late for that, if it's already happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A special committee was appointed by the Exec Board to write a Revision of the Bylaws the committee did not include the current Constitution and Bylaws standing committee.

..........

His report recommended the Revision not be adopted stating it was in violation of Robert’s Rules of Order (10th edition, page 474, lines 28 through 30) from the beginning: “A special committee may not be appointed to perform a task that falls within the assigned function of an existing standing committee”.

The Bylaws only refers to the standing committee role to make an ongoing review and recommendations……….nothing mentioned about a Revision. It was not an assigned function.

My opinion based on the cite from RONR is that he is right (that this should have NOT been assigned to this special committee) and you're wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor Jimbo is doing fine, the President asked that the opinions be omitted and the report contain only recommendations based on facts.

It was also suggested that the special committee may draft a rebuttal.

Well, I hope the CB&L Chair refuses to comply with the President's request and keeps his report as-is, because I still think he's right. But I suppose that will ultimately be the assembly's decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I hope the CB&L Chair refuses to comply with the President's request and keeps his report as-is, because I still think he's right. But I suppose that will ultimately be the assembly's decision.

He did refuse, he was supposed to file it with HQ instead he violated the bylaws procedure and protocol distributed it to the members.

Calls for his resignation are being heard.

We found that a point of order was raised way back in July by the CBL Chair when the special committee was formed

The ruling was negative, no appeal was filed.

I know in law it's called Res judicata.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did refuse,

Good for him.

he was supposed to file it with HQ instead he violated the bylaws procedure and protocol distributed it to the members.

Are you saying your Bylaws prohibit the individual from distributing his recommendations to the members?

Calls for his resignation are being heard.

Resignation is a voluntary act, so you can call all you want and he can ignore you. I don't know why you're all so surprised that the chair of the Constitution and Bylaws committees is providing recommendations about the Constitutions and Bylaws.

I know in law it's called Res judicata.

Trying to apply legal terms to parliamentary procedure is generally unwise. If you are suggesting that the matter cannot be raised again, you are incorrect. The CB&L Chair (or any other member) could raise a Point of Order again on this issue, and this time an Appeal from the ruling of the chair could be raised. The fact that you talk about "filing" an appeal suggests that you may have customized Point of Order/Appeal procedures, and these would be up to your assembly to interpret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying your Bylaws prohibit the individual from distributing his recommendations to the members?

yes they do

Trying to apply legal terms to parliamentary procedure is generally unwise. If you are suggesting that the matter cannot be raised again, you are incorrect. The CB&L Chair (or any other member) could raise a Point of Order again on this issue, and this time an Appeal from the ruling of the chair could be raised. The fact that you talk about "filing" an appeal suggests that you may have customized Point of Order/Appeal procedures, and these would be up to your assembly to interpret.

Really, so this could go on forever. The same point of order can be raised over and over again?

So then each member could raise a "point of order"? I can't see 100's of members doing that, I'm sure that's not what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did refuse, he was supposed to file it with HQ instead he violated the bylaws procedure and protocol distributed it to the members.

Calls for his resignation are being heard.

We found that a point of order was raised way back in July by the CBL Chair when the special committee was formed

The ruling was negative, no appeal was filed.

I know in law it's called Res judicata.

Without reading the exact text of the ruling, it's not possible to opine whether it would actually prohibit him from communicating with members. I doubt the chair has any such authority. I know of no society where the bylaws prohibit a member from speaking with another member. Nothing you have said implies the invocation of Executive Session.

I'll just leave it at "your bylaws are up to you to interpret". According to the rules in RONR, the C&BL chair did nothing wrong that I can see, and was correct about the improper appointment of a special committee.

Calls for resignation and the gratuitous tossing out of Latin terms are generally unpersuasive in such matters, but may get you more mileage in the meeting of your assembly than they will here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes they do

I'll take your word on that (although such a provision seems unusual). If the member is violating the Bylaws he could certainly be subject to discipline.

Really, so this could go on forever. The same point of order can be raised over and over again?

No, it can't go on forever. The latest point at which a Point of Order regarding the legitimacy of the committee would be timely is when the report is given at the meeting. After that point, it's too late to complain, as the amendments are in the hands of the assembly and where they came from no longer matters.

So then each member could raise a "point of order"? I can't see 100's of members doing that, I'm sure that's not what you mean.

No, of course not. A Point of Order certainly can't be raised again on the same issue at the same session. I am saying that a Point of Order could be raised by a member about this issue again at your next meeting when the report is actually given, and at that point a member could Appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...