Guest Jason Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:26 AM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:26 AM Thanks so much for this forum!!! I've been digging for quite some time, and need a bit of aid.Ok, so my organization has a meeting coming up where we will be asked to vote to adopt a new constitution and bylaws. It has already passed the 2/3rds majority of the executive board, and now they seek a 2/3rds majority of the membership's support. I am stridently opposed to this new constitution and bylaws, and simply need the time to explain my opposition to the membership. My sense is that the President is either not going to allow such comments to be made, or will interrupt such comments by asking the person to sit down. This has happened countless times, but we've never actually dealt with a constitutional issue before. Our current constitution and bylaws have no provisions about such votes, aside from setting down the 2/3rds requirement.So my question is whether or not the President can move this vote without discussion, and whether the President can squash dissenting opinions through "revoking the floor". I'd certainly love to chat with the voters prior to this meeting, but our membership list is considered "private" and will not be shared with members...and I will not actually see any of them in person until the meeting that we take this vote. I am tremendously concerned I will not be afforded the chance to point out the flaws in the new literature, and that many members are currently indifferent or haven't read the document. The President is counting on this apathy to push a quite staggering agenda through our bylaws, and I am desiring to put things right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:37 AM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:37 AM So my question is whether or not the President can move this vote without discussion, and whether the President can squash dissenting opinions through "revoking the floor".No, the President has no authority to do either of these things under RONR. If the President had any such authority, it would have to come from the organization's Bylaws. Under RONR, the President may not unilaterally limit debate. The President also may not "revoke the floor" (unless the member is out of order, perhaps due to making indecorous or non-germane comments).With that said, the assembly may limit debate by means of the motion to Limit Debate or put an end to debate entirely with the motion for the Previous Question. Either motion requires a 2/3 vote and is not debatable. There is no mechanism under RONR for anyone to "revoke the floor" in order to squash dissenting opinions.If the President tries to pull the stunts you are anticipating, be prepared to raise a Point of Order, and an Appeal, if necessary. I would read up on RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 240-252 to familiarize yourself with both motions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:39 AM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:39 AM Thanks so much for this forum!!! I've been digging for quite some time, and need a bit of aid.Ok, so my organization has a meeting coming up where we will be asked to vote to adopt a new constitution and bylaws. It has already passed the 2/3rds majority of the executive board, and now they seek a 2/3rds majority of the membership's support. I am stridently opposed to this new constitution and bylaws, and simply need the time to explain my opposition to the membership. My sense is that the President is either not going to allow such comments to be made, or will interrupt such comments by asking the person to sit down. This has happened countless times, but we've never actually dealt with a constitutional issue before. Our current constitution and bylaws have no provisions about such votes, aside from setting down the 2/3rds requirement.So my question is whether or not the President can move this vote without discussion, and whether the President can squash dissenting opinions through "revoking the floor". I'd certainly love to chat with the voters prior to this meeting, but our membership list is considered "private" and will not be shared with members...and I will not actually see any of them in person until the meeting that we take this vote. I am tremendously concerned I will not be afforded the chance to point out the flaws in the new literature, and that many members are currently indifferent or haven't read the document. The President is counting on this apathy to push a quite staggering agenda through our bylaws, and I am desiring to put things right.This motion "...to adopt a new constitution and bylaws" is divisible on the demand of a single member, in my opinion. I think things will go more smoothly if the adoption of the new constituion and the new bylaws are handled as two separate questions.A motion to replace a previously-adopted constitution or previously-adopted bylaws is a particular instance of a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, RONR (10th ed.), §35, pp. 293ff. Such a motion is definitely debatable, and debate can go into the merits of both the "old" document" and the "new" document.The president has the duty of his office to recognize each and every member who is entitled to the floor. Never, ever, can the president "revoke[] the floor" to shut off debate; only the assembly can limit or close debate by a two-thirds vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:43 AM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:43 AM This motion "...to adopt a new constitution and bylaws" is divisible on the demand of a single member, in my opinion. I think things will go more smoothly if the adoption of the new constituion and the new bylaws are handled as two separate questions.I agree, provided that the Constitution and Bylaws are separate documents. Some organizations, however, have a single governing document which is referred to as the "Constitution and Bylaws." I can't tell for certain from the facts provided which is the case here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jason Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:44 AM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:44 AM Thank you so much. I will certainly read up on both motions. It's the type of scenario where the President will most likely choose to ignore such motions, but at least it makes me informed, and perhaps I can persuade some members into backing me up. a very tough situation. anyhow, again, thanks for this forum!! so very helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:50 AM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:50 AM It's the type of scenario where the President will most likely choose to ignore such motions...Well, if you're willing to do a bit more research, there are methods to deal with that as well. I think you should take a look at RONR, 10th ed., pg. 642, lines 11-19, Official Interpretation 2006-2, and FAQ #20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jason Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:55 AM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:55 AM Sorry Rob, I didn't see your reply while I was typing mine!It's a constitution and bylaws in one document (and title), though the bylaws do have their own section, and article numbers that are reset from those of the constitution. I agree strongly about your understanding of the duties of the President, however, sometimes in no-man's land such understanding just leaves me frustrated. As I said, preventing debate and shutting down speakers are par for the course. Our members are prevented from seeing our present constitution and bylaws. (which someone might have sorta kinda "borrowed" and sorta kinda made copies and handed them out to known members.) It is really hard to make a case for the grotesque changes when people don't have the original! *sigh* you folks should swing by and be mortified with me. hahaha! anyhow. again, I appreciate your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:58 AM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:58 AM Our members are prevented from seeing our present constitution and bylaws.This is also highly problematic and should be rectified as soon as possible. While it is not required, RONR recommends that all members be given a copy of the Constitution and Bylaws. Failing that, all members at least have a right to view the Constitution and Bylaws of the society, and they should be kept with the Secretary's records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted August 18, 2011 at 01:01 AM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 01:01 AM Sorry Rob, I didn't see your reply while I was typing mine!It's a constitution and bylaws in one document (and title), though the bylaws do have their own section, and article numbers that are reset from those of the constitution. I agree strongly about your understanding of the duties of the President, however, sometimes in no-man's land such understanding just leaves me frustrated. As I said, preventing debate and shutting down speakers are par for the course. Our members are prevented from seeing our present constitution and bylaws. (which someone might have sorta kinda "borrowed" and sorta kinda made copies and handed them out to known members.) It is really hard to make a case for the grotesque changes when people don't have the original! *sigh* you folks should swing by and be mortified with me. hahaha! anyhow. again, I appreciate your time.In my opinion, this document is divisible on the demand of a single member, and I recommend that this be done.In my opinion, a single member can demand that both the old documents and the new documents be read aloud when the questions are stated by the chair, and again before the votes are taken.I regret that your organization elected such a terribly incompetent president, but it did. Maybe there can be some hard reflection before the next election rolls around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jason Posted August 18, 2011 at 01:17 AM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 01:17 AM not incompetent. dangerous. a person who knows that their membership does not know. I am doing my best to fill people in as I go, but without a membership list, and with all of our meetings (sans one per year) held in executive session, it's hard to communicate. ugly. one of my major concerns with the new is the removal of the elections procedures. perhaps you can see why!in any event, I understand the benefit of the reading, but not sure I understand the benefit of the splitting? (per your opinion). I honestly think this would spook many members...they are particularly fond of avoiding conflict, and have little to no understanding of procedure. I don't want them to be put off by the actions...I just want them to hear me. I've already decided that if I am not allowed to speak, that I'm going to simply stand and speak over anything else, knowing that it would take quite a long time for an enforced removal to occur (giving me the time to make the case), but that road is awfully ugly, and again will likely turn off people. (the membership is devoutly non-confrontational. think kindergarten teachers.)anyhow, again I thank you. I want to go in there with my head on straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted August 18, 2011 at 01:26 AM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 01:26 AM not incompetent. dangerous. a person who knows that their membership does not know. I am doing my best to fill people in as I go, but without a membership list, and with all of our meetings (sans one per year) held in executive session, it's hard to communicate. ugly. one of my major concerns with the new is the removal of the elections procedures. perhaps you can see why!in any event, I understand the benefit of the reading, but not sure I understand the benefit of the splitting? (per your opinion). I honestly think this would spook many members...they are particularly fond of avoiding conflict, and have little to no understanding of procedure. I don't want them to be put off by the actions...I just want them to hear me. I've already decided that if I am not allowed to speak, that I'm going to simply stand and speak over anything else, knowing that it would take quite a long time for an enforced removal to occur (giving me the time to make the case), but that road is awfully ugly, and again will likely turn off people. (the membership is devoutly non-confrontational. think kindergarten teachers.)anyhow, again I thank you. I want to go in there with my head on straight.You're welcome to use your own judgment on the question of dividing the document. That's up to you.The deliberative assembly is responsible for the enforcement of its rules and the transaction of its business, so there is no remedy to offer for a group of "devoutly non-confrontational" members who are both ignorant of the rules and apathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 18, 2011 at 01:48 AM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 01:48 AM I've already decided that if I am not allowed to speak, that I'm going to simply stand and speak over anything else, knowing that it would take quite a long time for an enforced removal to occur (giving me the time to make the case), but that road is awfully ugly, and again will likely turn off people.I think it would be best to exhaust all of your parliamentary options before going down that road, since as you note, that is likely to turn members against you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Cisar Posted August 18, 2011 at 03:42 AM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 03:42 AM not incompetent. dangerous. a person who knows that their membership does not know. I am doing my best to fill people in as I go, but without a membership list, and with all of our meetings (sans one per year) held in executive session, it's hard to communicate. ugly. one of my major concerns with the new is the removal of the elections procedures. perhaps you can see why!You may want to consult a lawyer if the president is depriving you of all rights. Especially if your organization is incorporated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jason Posted September 7, 2011 at 02:11 AM Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 at 02:11 AM I just wanted to thank you folks. We had the vote, and as expected, I was denied the right to speak, but having prepared myself with your advice, I managed to get a limited number of points in before I was shut down completely. The success was getting other members to see that the President was out of line, and they started to ask their own questions about matters. At the end of the meeting, the proposed constitutional changes failed (though by a MUCH closer vote than one should ever expect), and many members left angry, and asking for accountability, and wondering just what their rights actually are. This is a big move for them!!It's a start. I'm hoping to keep those fires stoked, and move things in a more positive direction. Thanks again for your help. Nobody said it was easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted September 8, 2011 at 01:10 AM Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 at 01:10 AM I just wanted to thank you folks. We had the vote, and as expected, I was denied the right to speak, but having prepared myself with your advice, I managed to get a limited number of points in before I was shut down completely. The success was getting other members to see that the President was out of line, and they started to ask their own questions about matters. At the end of the meeting, the proposed constitutional changes failed (though by a MUCH closer vote than one should ever expect), and many members left angry, and asking for accountability, and wondering just what their rights actually are. This is a big move for them!!It's a start. I'm hoping to keep those fires stoked, and move things in a more positive direction. Thanks again for your help. Nobody said it was easy.I would encourage the members of your organization to obtain copies of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief. The book is short and easy to read, and I think the members will have a better idea of their rights and the powers and duties of the presiding officer. Knowledge is power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.