Guest Denise Gregory Posted October 28, 2011 at 05:04 PM Report Share Posted October 28, 2011 at 05:04 PM At recent open meeting, the Treasurer moved to table the motion and discussion. Vote followed - unanimously in favor, with the President and one member absent. After the vote, 1st VP stated, "I know we voted to table this but I have a statement I would like to read." Followed by 12 minute reading of her opposition to the motion. Pandemonium ensued with the membership thereafter, with the two passionately held sides battling for 90 minutes. It is my belief she took this tack while the President was absent deliberately, as they are on opposite sides of the issue in question. I believe the VP's action is in violation of the rules of order. Am I correct? What can be done to sanction or admonish? Any suggestions?I refer toCan something be defeated by adopting a motion to table it? Answer:This is a common violation of fair procedure. Such a motion is not in order, because it would permit debate to be suppressed by a majority vote, and only a two-thirds vote can do that. The proper use of the motion to Lay on the Table is stated in the answer to Question 12, immediately above. [RONR (11th ed.), pp. 215-17.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted October 28, 2011 at 05:21 PM Report Share Posted October 28, 2011 at 05:21 PM Yes the rules were violated and someone should have raised a Point of Order that the motion was not under consideration until the assembly adopted a motion to Take From The Table. I suppose you could take disciplinary action against the VP but the members there are just as much (if not more) to blame for what happened because they are ultimately responsible for enforcing their own rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted October 29, 2011 at 03:22 AM Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 at 03:22 AM At recent open meeting, the Treasurer moved to table the motion and discussion. Vote followed - unanimously in favor, with the President and one member absent. After the vote, 1st VP stated, "I know we voted to table this but I have a statement I would like to read." Followed by 12 minute reading of her opposition to the motion. Pandemonium ensued with the membership thereafter, with the two passionately held sides battling for 90 minutes. It is my belief she took this tack while the President was absent deliberately, as they are on opposite sides of the issue in question. I believe the VP's action is in violation of the rules of order. Am I correct? What can be done to sanction or admonish? Any suggestions?I refer toCan something be defeated by adopting a motion to table it? Answer:This is a common violation of fair procedure. Such a motion is not in order, because it would permit debate to be suppressed by a majority vote, and only a two-thirds vote can do that. The proper use of the motion to Lay on the Table is stated in the answer to Question 12, immediately above. [RONR (11th ed.), pp. 215-17.]Under the formal rules, the chair shouldn't be debating. I'll assume that she was presiding in the president's absence. (how shaky is that limb of presumption?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Denise Gregory Posted November 2, 2011 at 12:55 AM Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 at 12:55 AM Yes, the 1st VP was "chair" in the president's absence - and yes, I do concur that the others are also accountable for what happened - in their defense this VP told them that they "could not speak unless I recognize you". The ego of this woman is beyond comment. I am just looking for specifics to charge her with at the next open meeting in two weeks. If the Board isn't going to police itself, then it falls to us members to do so. Any thoughts to the specific rules, paragraphs I can quote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 2, 2011 at 01:01 AM Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 at 01:01 AM Yes, the 1st VP was "chair" in the president's absence - and yes, I do concur that the others are also accountable for what happened - in their defense this VP told them that they "could not speak unless I recognize you". The ego of this woman is beyond comment. I am just looking for specifics to charge her with at the next open meeting in two weeks. If the Board isn't going to police itself, then it falls to us members to do so. Any thoughts to the specific rules, paragraphs I can quote?Well, in general it's true that members may not speak unless recognized, but a Point of Order is one of the exceptions. It can interrupt someone who has the floor, and the chair is (normally) obligated to deal with it when raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted November 2, 2011 at 01:01 AM Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 at 01:01 AM Yes, the 1st VP was "chair" in the president's absence - and yes, I do concur that the others are also accountable for what happened - in their defense this VP told them that they "could not speak unless I recognize you". The ego of this woman is beyond comment. I am just looking for specifics to charge her with at the next open meeting in two weeks. If the Board isn't going to police itself, then it falls to us members to do so. Any thoughts to the specific rules, paragraphs I can quote?Well, the quote you attribute to her is dead-on, so you better look elsewhere for violations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted November 2, 2011 at 01:03 AM Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 at 01:03 AM Don't go "charging her" next meeting until she actually violates a rule. Then, politely, raise a "Point of Order" and be ready to state what rule is being violated. (There are only some 700 pages of rules in the book so you might have a bit of brushing up to do.)Read this forum to see all sorts of typical rule violations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanSullo Posted November 3, 2011 at 12:26 AM Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 at 12:26 AM I am just looking for specifics to charge her with at the next open meeting in two weeks.Although the book is thick enough to be used as an offensive weapon, it's contents should not be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.