Membership

[Guest Pemfab]

A person has applied for membership to a civic club

Person went through proper channels to their knowledge to gain membership (i.e. filled out membership application and paid dues)

Person was investigated and found favorable for membership and voted on by secret ballot and found favorable but before they could be 'initiated' people with personal grievances campaigned and found reasons to deny membership to this person (trumped up charges as to character etc...)

Local by laws state that a person AFTER INITIATION can be brought on charges...however, this person is in limbo between the favorable vote and the actual initiation process.

Can applicant be forced to 'reapply' for membership vs. contesting existing positive vote? (The concern is that if new vote were to be performed...there would be a 'blackballing' of said applicant.)

There are no local by laws discussing this type of questioning. (Usually people just black ball a person and they are rejected and it is a non-issue)

Are their any issues of 'fraud' or 'accused' fraud that Roberts Rules would apply? I say person should be initiated and then local by-law procedures should follow in order to vote them out following investigation; instead of general members being able to 'cherry pick' for personal reasons who they do and don't want in the civic club.

[Gary c Tesser]

Without knowing completely what your bylaws say -- which no one on this website will do unless we apply for membership -- I point you to the question: What in your membership process would allow an impediment to making this person a member? Whining doesn't count. Unless the bylaws say so. Campaigning doesn't count. Unless the bylaws say so. Accusations of fraud don't count, unless the bylaws say so.

Proof of fraud doesn't count. Unless the bylaws says so. Conviction of fraud doesn't count, unless the bylaws say so. Currently serving a prison sentence for fraud, or for eating crocodiles, doesn't count. Unless the bylaws say so.

Do we see a pattern developing here? On what bylaw-based, procedural, grounds do those who are "contesting existing positive vote" base their contesting?

[Larry Cisar]

Person was investigated and found favorable for membership and voted on by secret ballot and found favorable but before they could be 'initiated' people with personal grievances campaigned and found reasons to deny membership to this person (trumped up charges as to character etc...)

Local by laws state that a person AFTER INITIATION can be brought on charges...however, this person is in limbo between the favorable vote and the actual initiation process.

Now, is initiation absolutely required before you are a member? If not, the person is a member.

[Gary c Tesser]

Larry, isn't that what I said?

[Gary Novosielski]

As I understand it, initiation is a process which new members go through after being admitted to membership. You don't initiate non-members, you initiate new members.

From everything you have said, this person is a new member, having been voted into membership. The ceremony of initiation, unless your bylaws say otherwise, is merely that--ceremonial. In other words, there is no "limbo" between membership and initiation or, if there is, all the people in it are already members.

Since all the crabbing these other people have been doing apparently took place without regard to any actual meeting, or any motions, any voting, or any semblance of due process, it would not seem to have any parliamentary significance at all. Ignore it.

[Guest Pemfab]

Bylaws state that an 'approved applicant is not a member until properly initiated in accordance with the 'rituals of the order'. This person has not been 'initiated' yet. Although the application has been approved and the person was voted on by secret ballot and found to favorable.

The 2 points of contention that have been used so far are:

1) they have tried to question the character of the person because after the application was submitted but before they were voted in they had been stopped for a DUI. There is nothing in the by-laws that state that a specific charge/crime etc. are grounds for denial of membership. The only thing stated in the by-laws is you must be of 'good moral character'. Which is very broad. Besides, the person has not been convicted and has not even been brought to court for said DUI.

2) In order to become an auxiliary member, one must have a member of the auxiliary 'sponsor' or propose you for membership and sign your application.

At the time of the application no auxiliary members were present and a 'regular' member filled out the application and 'signed' an auxiliary members name (with their permission via phone). Which is now being questioned as forgery or fraud.

The president has stated that they are going to ask for a 'vote' to nullify the initial application and then ask this person to resubmit an application and go through the entire process again. However, I am not sure if it is appropriate for the president and or the auxiliary to nullify an application when the by-laws state only the following:

The proper procedure to handle an initiated member who gave false information in a membership application is for a member, in good standing of the Order, to file charges against the initiated member. The issue raised by these charges can then be determined by the trial committee. Should the Trial Committee determine that the application for membership contained false information, it would be their ruling to determine whether the member should be expelled from the Order. (this seems to be difficult since the member has NOT been officially INITIATED yet)

Sections 70.10, ...of the statues, apply regardless of who the applicant is. The Secretary, Interviewing Committee and the Auxiliary must act in accordance with those statutes. These statutes are founded in the the fundamental policy...which is to allow the Local Auxiliaries to judge the qualifications of their members under article....In the event that a person is approved for membership by a vote of the auxiliary, or has been initiated when not eligible for membership under the constitution and statues of our Order, it is any member's right to challenge the approval, vote of the Auxiliary and/or the initiation. If the challenge is denied then the charges may be filed against those who have violated the Constitution and Statues. (I am also not sure how to read this about the charges being filed...is it against the member who challenged the vote or against the person who supposedly ineligibly applied?)

So ultimately, I think the existing member used poor judgement trying to sign someone up using the wrong channels and should face whatever consequences the main charter finds appropriate. However, the new member who signed up is without knowledge and should not be punished for their mistake...in my opinion.

Sorry for the lengthy post. I am just trying to bring some order to an organization that claims to follow 'Robert's' Rules but really has no idea of what they are or how to use them. I am a fairly new member and am not familiar with RR myself. But, I'm trying to learn them and decide if I want to even remain a member. I am questioning this on principle.

[Dan Honemann]

Sorry for the lengthy post. I am just trying to bring some order to an organization that claims to follow 'Robert's' Rules but really has no idea of what they are or how to use them. I am a fairly new member and am not familiar with RR myself. But, I'm trying to learn them and decide if I want to even remain a member. I am questioning this on principle.

But as best I can determine, your questions seek an explanation of the meaning, effect, and proper application of highly customized provisions contained in your organization's governing documents. In such a case, the people here can be of very little, if any, assistance.

[Josh Martin]

I am just trying to bring some order to an organization that claims to follow 'Robert's' Rules but really has no idea of what they are or how to use them. I am a fairly new member and am not familiar with RR myself. But, I'm trying to learn them and decide if I want to even remain a member. I am questioning this on principle.

Your question doesn't really have to do with Robert's Rules, but with the customized rules in your Bylaws. In RONR, the world is neatly divided into members and non-members, so it does not provide any advice for what to do about someone who's "in-between." It will be up to your organization to interpret its own Bylaws. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 for some Principles of Interpretation. If you require further assistance, contact either the National Association of Parliamentarians or the American Institute of Parliamentarians to be referred to a professional parliamentarian.

You might also contact other organizations of a similar nature and see if they have any experience with this sort of issue. While their exact Bylaws provisions will likely be different, they might be able to help you get a handle on this limbo state between member and non-member.

[Guest Pemfab]

Thank you all for your advice. I suspect the interpretation is contingent on our personal club's rules. However, I don't feel that the president has the right to just 'nullify' a vote and ask for a re-vote. I suppose that is possibly where Robert's Rules would have helped.

[Josh Martin]

Thank you all for your advice. I suspect the interpretation is contingent on our personal club's rules. However, I don't feel that the president has the right to just 'nullify' a vote and ask for a re-vote. I suppose that is possibly where Robert's Rules would have helped.

The President may rule the motion to admit the member null and void if he believes there is a continuing breach (see RONR, 10th ed., pg. 244), but such a ruling is subject to appeal. It may be overturned on appeal by majority vote.

[Guest Pemfab]

I believe from the short researching of RONR that I have done that the vote to accept a member has been done. It cannot be 'reconsidered' or 'rescinded' because the person has been 'notified' by mail of their acceptance. They were not 'rejected' which is the only place in our by-laws that states that the president can 'immediately' ask for another vote if it is in the best interest of the organization. Therefore the vote should stand and in accordance with the by-laws take additional steps as stated in previous posts.

e.g.

'In the event that a person is approved for membership by a vote of the auxiliary, or has been initiated when not eligible for membership under the constitution and statues of our Order, it is any member's right to challenge the approval, vote of the Auxiliary and/or the initiation. If the challenge is denied then the charges may be filed against those who have violated the Constitution and Statues'.

(I am still not sure how to read this about the charges being filed...is it against the member who challenged the vote or against the person who is supposedly ineligibly applied?)

Isn't there also something about trying to 'change' a vote where you have to have a person who voted 'for' the action make a new motion to change the action? If so, the president abstained from voting in this case. Only 4 people out of about 16 in attendance cast a ballot in this vote. After the ballots were counted and found to be favorable the motion to accept this person passed with no objections. So, is it a person who actually cast a ballot that has to be in favor? Or is it the collective of those in attendance since it was the 'motion to accept for membership' once the balloting was finished.

I feel that if the president comes to our next meeting and makes a motion (without notice) to nullify the vote it will be considered out of order. Am I wrong here? Also unfortunately I have not been able to get my hands on a copy of the official RONR...I only have The New Webster's Simplified and Applied' version. So if you quote chapter/verse of original RONR could you please include the subject to look up. i.e. See Reconsider a vote or See Point of Order etc.

Thanks again...I hope that I have redirected my questions to be more geared towards the RONR side of things vs the individual by-law interpretations of our club.

[Josh Martin]

'In the event that a person is approved for membership by a vote of the auxiliary, or has been initiated when not eligible for membership under the constitution and statues of our Order, it is any member's right to challenge the approval, vote of the Auxiliary and/or the initiation. If the challenge is denied then the charges may be filed against those who have violated the Constitution and Statues'.

(I am still not sure how to read this about the charges being filed...is it against the member who challenged the vote or against the person who is supposedly ineligibly applied?)

This is, again, a question about your organization's customized rules, and is beyond the scope of RONR and this forum. It is up to your organization to interpret its own rules.

Isn't there also something about trying to 'change' a vote where you have to have a person who voted 'for' the action make a new motion to change the action?

Not quite. There is a rule that a member must have voted on the prevailing side in order to make a motion to Reconsider.

So, is it a person who actually cast a ballot that has to be in favor? Or is it the collective of those in attendance since it was the 'motion to accept for membership' once the balloting was finished.

The rule you were thinking of only applies to the motion to Reconsider, and from my understanding of the facts, that motion was not used.

I feel that if the president comes to our next meeting and makes a motion (without notice) to nullify the vote it will be considered out of order. Am I wrong here?

The President would actually just make a ruling, not make a motion, and a ruling isn't really "out of order," although the ruling may be appealed from if it is believed to be incorrect. A majority vote is sufficient to overturn the chair's ruling. I can say that from the facts provided, there is no reason under RONR that the motion to admit the member would be null and void. The President's reasoning for his ruling may include provisions of the organization's customized rules, and as previously noted, it is up to the organization to interpret those rules.

Also unfortunately I have not been able to get my hands on a copy of the official RONR...I only have The New Webster's Simplified and Applied' version. So if you quote chapter/verse of original RONR could you please include the subject to look up. i.e. See Reconsider a vote or See Point of Order etc.

Get a copy of The Right Book as soon as possible. The version you have is a third-party knockoff (and from what I've learned about it on this forum, not a very good one). I wouldn't even bother looking up information in it - you're more likely than not to come away with misinformation that we'll have to correct.

[Guest Pemfab]

This is, again, a question about your organization's customized rules, and is beyond the scope of RONR and this forum. It is up to your organization to interpret its own rules.

Not quite. There is a rule that a member must have voted on the prevailing side in order to make a motion to Reconsider.

The rule you were thinking of only applies to the motion to Reconsider, and from my understanding of the facts, that motion was not used.

The President would actually just make a ruling, not make a motion, and a ruling isn't really "out of order," although the ruling may be appealed from if it is believed to be incorrect. A majority vote is sufficient to overturn the chair's ruling. I can say that from the facts provided, there is no reason under RONR that the motion to admit the member would be null and void. The President's reasoning for his ruling may include provisions of the organization's customized rules, and as previously noted, it is up to the organization to interpret those rules.

Get a copy of The Right Book as soon as possible. The version you have is a third-party knockoff (and from what I've learned about it on this forum, not a very good one). I wouldn't even bother looking up information in it - you're more likely than not to come away with misinformation that we'll have to correct.

[Guest Pemfab]

Thank you again. I am still working on acquiring a copy of the proper book. However, to update the situation (I'm sure you are all rapt with anticipation about it :-) We had the meeting. The president decided that she would not change/challenge/void the vote. So the membership was upheld for the individual in question; and they were initiated that evening.

I believe if the president did try to nullify the vote, it could have been argued that it was something that could not be 'undone'. As the person had been notified by mail of their acceptance. Then the proper procedure would have been to follow the by-laws and take actions against the member if it was deemed necessary.

But, luckily the point is moot now. However, we have another vote coming up this week that I am sure will have people again trying to black ball the candidate. Hopefully it will all be out of their systems prior to the vote and the ballots will speak for themselves.