Guest Guest~Cindy72~ Posted August 17, 2011 at 12:25 PM Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 at 12:25 PM At a local county council meeeting regarding county employee's pay raises, there was a motion to rid the "Education Multiplier" with a second from another councilman. The president said that since one of the council members was not present to vote on the motions, he would not allow the vote to take place. There was a quorum of council members to hold this meetin, which most were against the Education Multiplier. Is this legal for the president to over ride the motions on the floor? This was not "tabled" and a chance to have another meeting prior to a vote is not possible according to the president. Instead he and his co-hart, which I believe is the author of this pay ordinance, put it to a study group. This was not the practice in the city council which I was elected to sit. If there was a quorum, the motions went to a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted August 17, 2011 at 12:32 PM Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 at 12:32 PM The President can rule something out of order anytime he believes it is.Why didn't anyone appeal his ruling if you think it was incorrect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted August 17, 2011 at 02:28 PM Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 at 02:28 PM Yes, the Chair can rule it out of order, but that doesn't mean he's right, and he has to give a reason. An Appeal (assuming he'd be generous enough to actually follow some parliamentary rules and procedures) would put it in the hands of the assembly to decide. Next time. This was not "tabled" and a chance to have another meeting prior to a vote is not possible according to the presidentAnd you believe him? Why does he say this?Instead he and his co-hart, which I believe is the author of this pay ordinance, put it to a study group. And you think they have the authority to do this? Do the bylaws say he can?If there was a quorum, the motions went to a vote.All things being equal, yeah that's they way it's usually done.So, stop letting your president do all this. I would tell you to buy The Book as well as Robert's Rules In Brief, but a new edition will be coming out next month, so get it from the library for now. You might get In Brief (only $6.95) and give it a read. Probably take an hour or two, and will get you better prepared. Then come back and ask more questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted August 17, 2011 at 03:26 PM Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 at 03:26 PM At a local county council meeeting regarding county employee's pay raises, there was a motion to rid the "Education Multiplier" with a second from another councilman. The president said that since one of the council members was not present to vote on the motions, he would not allow the vote to take place. Maybe it's nit picking, but the chair didn't rule the motion out of order, apparently, but simply refused to allow it. Ruling it out of order would require a reason, as noted above; but simply being a dictator usually comes with no explanation. Chairs preside at meetings of the assembly - a position of service. They are not dictators.Perhaps a gently educational conversation with the president would be helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest ~Cindy72~ Posted August 17, 2011 at 04:22 PM Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 at 04:22 PM The President can rule something out of order anytime he believes it is.Why didn't anyone appeal his ruling if you think it was incorrect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest ~Cindy72~ Posted August 17, 2011 at 04:28 PM Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 at 04:28 PM Yes I think is totally out of line to pass on the vote. I can't understand why the other councilmembers allowed this to happen. The president did not say this was out of order, he just said they would not vote on the topic on the floor due to the absent of this one councilman. I had the older version of Robert Rules, but can't find it anywhere. I will be buying the new version however. Thanks for all the comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted August 17, 2011 at 04:33 PM Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 at 04:33 PM Yes I think is totally out of line to pass on the vote. I can't understand why the other councilmembers allowed this to happen. The president did not say this was out of order, he just said they would not vote on the topic on the floor due to the absent of this one councilman. I had the older version of Robert Rules, but can't find it anywhere. I will be buying the new version however. Thanks for all the comments.Well that's still a ruling, subject to appeal, imo. Next time speak up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest ~Cindy72~ Posted August 17, 2011 at 04:41 PM Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 at 04:41 PM Well that's still a ruling, subject to appeal, imo. Next time speak up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest ~Cindy72~ Posted August 17, 2011 at 05:03 PM Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 at 05:03 PM All of us in the audience did speak out against his ruling! It did not make a difference with him. We had a packed house of county employee's at this meeting to show our opinions against the "Education Multiplier" pay increase. This Multiplier does not effect those who do not have a degree for the job they hold. It's for any degree which an individual may have, that may not specifically be for the job they were hired to work. IE: We have an employee who holds a degree for a interior design related field who is working in the Auditor's office. Then we have employees who have been working 30 yrs. with no degree, but still knows the job and does it well. These are people who are veterans, single moms, or just people in general that at the time of their employment, a high school education was all that was required. We have some who attended college for a degree but had to drop out due to being a single parent or other's who just could not afford to continue their college education. In other words, the County Council is wanting to reward those who holds any college degree regardless of it fitting their job description. That to me is insulting the employees who do not have that college education, but can still do the job and not be rewarded for their dedication and professionalism at the task that is required of them. I guess at the next county election, we can show our objections if they pass this salary ordinance, which is discriminating and insulting for the ones that do not have that college diploma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted August 17, 2011 at 06:35 PM Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 at 06:35 PM Unfortunately, only members of council may raise points of order or appeals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted August 17, 2011 at 06:39 PM Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 at 06:39 PM Unfortunately, only members of council may raise points of order or appeals.I doubt that it's unfortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted August 17, 2011 at 06:58 PM Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 at 06:58 PM I doubt that it's unfortunate. I'm reconsidering my position of not allowing a motion that calls you a Grumpy Old Coot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted August 17, 2011 at 07:06 PM Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 at 07:06 PM I'm reconsidering my position of not allowing a motion that calls you a Grumpy Old Coot. As well you should! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.