out of oreder ruling

[Guest Jay M]

After president ruled "the agenda item is out of order as it failed to meet the constitution requirements" to discuss in the meeting, can the mebership vote on out of order to include it in agenda? Thanks in advance.

[hmtcastle]

After president ruled "the agenda item is out of order as it failed to meet the constitution requirements" to discuss in the meeting, can the mebership vote on out of order to include it in agenda? Thanks in advance.

Rulings of the chair can usually be appealed (unless there is clearly no room for reasonable disagreement).

[Guest Jay M]

Yes there is no room to appeal as there are no 10% of total membership signatures to propose an amendment, but by mistake secreatary added it to agenda. Kindly refer section details of Robert rules

[Rev Ed]

If at least 10% of the membership has to petition for the inclusion of an item, and that requirement is not met, then the Chairman was correct to rule the issue out of order according to the organization's own rules. RONR cannot help you, or any other member, on this issue.

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes there is no room to appeal as there are no 10% of total membership signatures to propose an amendment, but by mistake secreatary added it to agenda. Kindly refer section details of Robert rules

There is no 10% signature rule in RONR, so there will be no details. But Appeals are discussed in §24.

Basically, it takes two people to Appeal from the decision of the chair (a mover and a seconder).

The motion is made, and seconded, immediately upon hearing the chair's ruling. The chair must put the question before the assembly. The question is (usuallly) debatable. No member may speak more than once except that the chair may speak first and last in support of his ruling. A vote is taken on whether to sustain the decision of the chair. It takes a majority in the negative to overturn the decision.

[Rev Ed]

There is no 10% signature rule in RONR, so there will be no details. But Appeals are discussed in §24.

Basically, it takes two people to Appeal from the decision of the chair (a mover and a seconder).

The motion is made, and seconded, immediately upon hearing the chair's ruling. The chair must put the question before the assembly. The question is (usuallly) debatable. No member may speak more than once except that the chair may speak first and last in support of his ruling. A vote is taken on whether to sustain the decision of the chair. It takes a majority in the negative to overturn the decision.

However, under the circumstances if the organization has a By-law, or stnading rule, requiring the 10% of members to request the issue be added to the Agenda, then an appeal is of no use - the organization must follow its own rules that it created above and beyond RONR.

[David A Foulkes]

However, under the circumstances if the organization has a By-law, or stnading rule, requiring the 10% of members to request the issue be added to the Agenda, then an appeal is of no use - the organization must follow its own rules that it created above and beyond RONR.

And going by what Guest_Jay posted originally, this appears to be a requirement set forth in the constitution actually. Whether the "quote" he provided is an actual quote or his understanding of what the President says is unknown at this time, of course.

[Gary Novosielski]

However, under the circumstances if the organization has a By-law, or stnading rule, requiring the 10% of members to request the issue be added to the Agenda, then an appeal is of no use - the organization must follow its own rules that it created above and beyond RONR.

Of course.

But if the chair attempted to apply that rule improperly, based on facts evident to the members, they could still appeal the ruling by the same procedure.

[Rev Ed]

Of course.

But if the chair attempted to apply that rule improperly, based on facts evident to the members, they could still appeal the ruling by the same procedure.

I believe it would be an assumption to assume that the application of the rule was improper - I have not read anything that says that the requirement (10% of the membership, per the Constitution of the organization) was met - in which case the appeal would be unwise and null and void. If the organization's own requirements are not met, then it is not met.

[Gary Novosielski]

I believe it would be an assumption to assume...

You could be right.

[Josh Martin]

I believe it would be an assumption to assume that the application of the rule was improper - I have not read anything that says that the requirement (10% of the membership, per the Constitution of the organization) was met - in which case the appeal would be unwise and null and void. If the organization's own requirements are not met, then it is not met.

Okay, but since we haven't actually seen the rule, I'm not sure we should assume it has been applied properly, either. The rule might not be as clear-cut as it seems.

[Guest Jay]

Okay, but since we haven't actually seen the rule, I'm not sure we should assume it has been applied properly, either. The rule might not be as clear-cut as it seems.

I thank you all for your valueble opinions. Here is the original text of article in our constitution " Any member with voting rights can propose an amendment to the Constitution provided it is supported in writing by ten percent (10%) of each category of members with voting rights. Such proposals must be submitted to the Secretary at least 30 days prior to the meeting."

I hope this text might help for more answers

[Gary Novosielski]

I thank you all for your valueble opinions. Here is the original text of article in our constitution " Any member with voting rights can propose an amendment to the Constitution provided it is supported in writing by ten percent (10%) of each category of members with voting rights. Such proposals must be submitted to the Secretary at least 30 days prior to the meeting."

I hope this text might help for more answers

Well, not without knowing what actually happened. You say the Secretary put it on the agenda. Did it have no signatures, some signatures, enough signatures in one category of members, but not all? Was the 30 days' time requirement met? Doesn't it require prior notice to the members? Was that provided? Is there disagreement about how many members are in each category? Did that change from the time of the signing to the time of the meeting?

Not that I really want answers to those questions, but I can imagine a number of situations where a ruling could depend on some not-so-cut-and-dried factors. And perhaps subject to appeal.

But none of this changes your rule(s). And none of us can tell you if your rules were violated.

To get back to your original question, if a motion is out of order because it did not follow the bylaws rules on bylaws amendment, the membership can't vote to make it in order by putting it on the agenda anyhow. And even if they could, it would still not be in order when it came up. And even if it were voted on and passed, it would be null and void if the bylaws provisions were not adhered to.

But you'll have to figure out if any of that took place that way.

[Josh Martin]

I thank you all for your valueble opinions. Here is the original text of article in our constitution " Any member with voting rights can propose an amendment to the Constitution provided it is supported in writing by ten percent (10%) of each category of members with voting rights. Such proposals must be submitted to the Secretary at least 30 days prior to the meeting."

I hope this text might help for more answers

Not really, as the fact remains that it is up to your assembly to interpret its own Constitution. If the chair believes the motion is out of order because it does not meet the requirements in the Constitution, he should rule it out of order. The ruling is subject to Appeal, and a majority vote is sufficient to overturn the chair's ruling. The rest of the issue revolves around the proper interpretation of the Constitution, which is beyond the scope of RONR and this forum.