Guest Steve Posted July 16, 2011 at 02:19 AM Report Share Posted July 16, 2011 at 02:19 AM Our board is supposed to follow Roberts Rules of order but any time our parliamentarian or another member of the general board makes a point of order or explains that their current action is against them, the president/chairperson continues his course of action telling the board they are wrong EVEN when we have the Book there and show it to him. What course of action does the general board then have when he continually goes about this behavior especially when he has filled the board with members of the good ole boys club? His nominating committee came back with only one person being nominated for each position and they are also all his buddies? Suggestions, ideas?Thanks.Frustrated in St Louis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted July 16, 2011 at 02:32 AM Report Share Posted July 16, 2011 at 02:32 AM See FAQ #20 on this site, and read Chapter XX of RONR (10th Ed.) carefully for instructions on how to depose this dictator get a new president. You'll also want to take a read through your bylaws to see if there's any relevant sections on discipline and removal of officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 16, 2011 at 03:28 AM Report Share Posted July 16, 2011 at 03:28 AM Our board is supposed to follow Roberts Rules of order but any time our parliamentarian or another member of the general board makes a point of order or explains that their current action is against them, the president/chairperson continues his course of action telling the board they are wrong EVEN when we have the Book there and show it to him.This is the chair's ruling on your point of order.What course of action does the general board then have when he continually goes about this behavior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Posted July 17, 2011 at 04:06 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 at 04:06 AM This is the chair's ruling on your point of order.What course of action does the general board then have when he continually goes about this behaviorA member can appeal from the decision of the chair, thereby placing the matter in the hands of the assembly to decide. In small boards, this will not require a second. How is the president filling the board? Is the board appointed by the president? That can be dangerous.His nominating committee? Uh-oh. Don't tell me the president appoints the nominating committee or serves on it. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 419, l. 7-18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Posted July 17, 2011 at 04:07 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 at 04:07 AM Oh yeah and there are 9 members of the Executive Committee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 17, 2011 at 01:00 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 at 01:00 PM Well the president does pick his nominating committee however nobody is allowed to be put on the ballot without the nominating committees approval, hence why we only get one person being nominated for each position making it a virtual lock for them to get the position.This is unusual authority to give the nominating committee. Such control makes it more like a we'll-decide-who-gets-elected committee. This type of authority to deny members the right to make nominations must be in the bylaws; just appointing a nominating committee wouldn't give the committee such authority. If this is a rule in your bylaws, whoever has the right to amend the bylaws could do so to adjust this rule. Our General assembly only has 14 active voting members however because in the executive committee they enacted a bylaw stating to get voting rights you may only be granted voting rights by attending 8 of 12 meetings within a 12 month period.This, too, could be amended by following the process for amending your bylaws, which should be spelled out in the document itself, usually at or near the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted July 17, 2011 at 01:17 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 at 01:17 PM This is unusual authority to give the nominating committee. Such control makes it more like a we'll-decide-who-gets-elected committee. This type of authority to deny members the right to make nominations must be in the bylaws; just appointing a nominating committee wouldn't give the committee such authority. If this is a rule in your bylaws, whoever has the right to amend the bylaws could do so to adjust this rule.If the bylaws don't specifically prohibit it, members may be able to mount a write-in campaign and successfully elect someone who wasn't nominated.Then you should do your best to fix the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 17, 2011 at 01:27 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 at 01:27 PM If the bylaws don't specifically prohibit it, members may be able to mount a write-in campaign and successfully elect someone who wasn't nominated.Then you should do your best to fix the bylaws.See RONR(10th ed.), p. 427, l. 20-25, for a rule supporting the write-in vote that scshunt mentions, and be prepare to present it to those who might contest the practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.