Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

another p. 251(a) question


Trina

Recommended Posts

Well, if it helps any, let’s just declare it to be a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that a society’s subordinate board may not take any action in excess of its authority, or any action that alters or conflicts with any decision made by the society’s assembly, and that any action so taken is null and void. :)

So, would it be appropriate to view the situation described in post #1 as a p. 251(d) violation? Or, in your opinion, do you still hold that the list on p. 251 is not exhaustive, and that the improper board actions described in this thread, although clearly null and void, are not really covered by p. 251?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, would it be appropriate to view the situation described in post #1 as a p. 251(d) violation? Or, in your opinion, do you still hold that the list on p. 251 is not exhaustive, and that the improper board actions described in this thread, although clearly null and void, are not really covered by p. 251?

The situation described in post #1 is a page 251(d) violation only if you accept the declaration in post #25 as being legitimate. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without getting into any discussion as to the appropriateness of raising a Point of Order about something in a subordinate body, I don't think this is necessarily true, since if the Point of Order must be timely, it must be raised as soon as possible. If the matter which is being questioned occurred outside a meeting, then the timeliness requirement would not forbid the point being made at the body, merely that if it weren't made in a timely fashion (such as at the outset of the first meeting after the matter occurred), then it would be out of order.

Hmmm, this thread has already seen a redefinition (or at least a stretch of the definition) of 'absentee'; now a redefinition of 'timely'. I thought these were terms with clear technical meanings under RONR (a more restricted meaning than the one carried by those words in common speech). I guess I have to think more about this view of 'timely', as well as the suggestion that a breach could occur outside a meeting. What do you have in mind? Or, are you simply saying that an improper act carried out at a board meeting occurs 'outside of a meeting' as far as the general membership is concerned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, this thread has already seen a redefinition (or at least a stretch of the definition) of 'absentee'; now a redefinition of 'timely'. I thought these were terms with clear technical meanings under RONR (a more restricted meaning than the one carried by those words in common speech). I guess I have to think more about this view of 'timely', as well as the suggestion that a breach could occur outside a meeting. What do you have in mind? Or, are you simply saying that an improper act carried out at a board meeting occurs 'outside of a meeting' as far as the general membership is concerned?

I'm afraid that this will lead to nothing other than more confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...if the Point of Order must be timely, it must be raised as soon as possible.

This is not correct. A Point of Order must always be timely. A Point of Order regarding a continuing breach, however, is timely at any point during the continuance of the breach, whereas in the general case a Point of Order is only timely if made promptly at the time the breach occurs.

If the matter which is being questioned occurred outside a meeting, then the timeliness requirement would not forbid the point being made at the body, merely that if it weren't made in a timely fashion (such as at the outset of the first meeting after the matter occurred), then it would be out of order.

I'm having a hard time imagining a case in which a Point of Order would be timely at the first meeting after the violation occurred, unless the violation is a continuing breach.

I guess I have to think more about this view of 'timely', as well as the suggestion that a breach could occur outside a meeting.

Well, I'm not sure where Mr. Hunt is going with his views on "timely," but a breach may certainly occur outside of a meeting - for instance, an officer of the organization might take action exceeding his authority. Generally, however, a motion to Ratify or disciplinary procedures (depending on whether the assembly thinks the action was justified) would be more appropriate than a Point of Order in such cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, the adopted main motion "that dues be raised from $40 to $50" does not conflict with the bylaws. What conflicts is the fact that the board (rather than the general membership) adopted the motion. Does the fact that the wrong body adopted the motion 'adhere' to the motion somehow, putting the adopted motion in violation of p. 251(a)?

I disagree if the bylaws say the board can raise the dues by 15% and the board adopts a motion to raise them by more than 15% how does that motion not conflict with the bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree if the bylaws say the board can raise the dues by 15% and the board adopts a motion to raise them by more than 15% how does that motion not conflict with the bylaws.

This argument seems to reflect a common (incorrect) interpretation of the the p. 251(a) language. Yes, the action of the board adopting such a motion violates the bylaws. A timely point of order should have been raised. However, once adopted, the motion -- standing in and of itself -- is not in violation of the bylaws (in the situation described in post #1). In this case, it is not forbidden in the bylaws to raise dues by more than 15%; it's just that the board is not allowed to adopt such a motion.

This gets back to my original question whether the fact that a particular body in the organization adopted the motion somehow invisibly adheres to the language of the motion post-adoption. No one has claimed that this is the case, at least not so far.

Again, I am in no way arguing that the motion should stand because it doesn't appear to be a p. 251(a) violation. I was trying to clarify what exactly the grounds for the continuing breach are in such a situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This argument seems to reflect a common (incorrect) interpretation of the the p. 251(a) language. Yes, the action of the board adopting such a motion violates the bylaws. A timely point of order should have been raised. However, once adopted, the motion -- standing in and of itself -- is not in violation of the bylaws (in the situation described in post #1). In this case, it is not forbidden in the bylaws to raise dues by more than 15%; it's just that the board is not allowed to adopt such a motion.

This gets back to my original question whether the fact that a particular body in the organization adopted the motion somehow invisibly adheres to the language of the motion post-adoption. No one has claimed that this is the case, at least not so far.

Again, I am in no way arguing that the motion should stand because it doesn't appear to be a p. 251(a) violation. I was trying to clarify what exactly the grounds for the continuing breach are in such a situation.

I'm sorry but I just don't get it The board voted to pass a motion to do something that it not only wasn't empowered to do it was forbidden from doing therefore that motion is null and void. The motion in question doesn't stand by itself because it was never really adopted. Only the members could pass said motion and they didn't.

P.251 a) says that if a main motion conflicts with the bylaws a point of order need not be timely and just because the general membership could have adopted the motion doesn't mean that the same motion doesn't conflict with the bylaws when adopted by the board,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, it is not forbidden in the bylaws to raise dues by more than 15%; it's just that the board is not allowed to adopt such a motion.

I'm afraid you've lost me here too. I don't see how you can separate the actor from the action. It would be as if I wrote a prescription and later claimed that there was no (continuing) problem with the prescription itself (i.e. it was the right drug for the right person with the right disease), it was just that I wasn't authorized to write it. I think most would argue that my signature voids the (otherwise flawless) prescription.

I think, to use Mr. Stackpole's word, the action "adheres" to the actor (and vice versa).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid you've lost me here too. I don't see how you can separate the actor from the action. It would be as if I wrote a prescription and later claimed that there was no (continuing) problem with the prescription itself (i.e. it was the right drug for the right person with the right disease), it was just that I wasn't authorized to write it. I think most would argue that my signature voids the (otherwise flawless) prescription.

I think, to use Mr. Stackpole's word, the action "adheres" to the actor (and vice versa).

I think Trina has it exactly right. A 251 (a) violation has occurred only when the substance of an adopted main motion conflicts with the bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to all this is on p. 124, ll. 24-28 & ll. 34-35.

A board taking action exceeding its authority has all the force of a single member, officer, or nonmember taking action in excess of his authority. "Hey, I lowered my dues."

Without ratification, it is not valid.

There never was any doubt at all but that any motion adopted by a subordinate board in excess of its authority is null and void (see post #4). The question was whether or not this falls under any of the exceptions listed on page 251, and the answer to this question is "no", unless one accepts the declaration in post #25 as being legitimate. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There never was any doubt at all but that any motion adopted by a subordinate board in excess of its authority is null and void (see post #4). The question was whether or not this falls under any of the exceptions listed on page 251, and the answer to this question is "no", unless one accepts the declaration in post #25 as being legitimate. :)

They must have misprinted some of the Deluxe Edition copies; the ones with the real rules* are supposed to say:

"f) any other action has been taken that is null and void.

In all such cases, it is never too late to raise a point of order since any action so taken is null and void."

*I hate to ruin it by saying so, but prudence dictates noting that this is a joke, folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They must have misprinted some of the Deluxe Edition copies; the ones with the real rules* are supposed to say:

"f) any other action has been taken that is null and void.

In all such cases, it is never too late to raise a point of order since any action so taken is null and void."

*I hate to ruin it by saying so, but prudence dictates noting that this is a joke, folks.

I don't see that a point of order is required in this situation. The board didn't change the dues, since it doesn't have the authority, so no rule is being violated. When a rule is being broken will be the time for the point of order.

Just as when any action is taken without the authority to act, a point of order isn't necessary to nullify the action. The act is NOT valid unless it is ratified.

I fear some* here are under the impression that the board's decision has changed the dues, unless and until a point of order is raised.

(*not Messrs. Honemann and Gerber)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see that a point of order is required in this situation. The board didn't change the dues, since it doesn't have the authority, so no rule is being violated. When a rule is being broken will be the time for the point of order.

Just as when any action is taken without the authority to act, a point of order isn't necessary to nullify the action. The act is NOT valid unless it is ratified.

I fear some* here are under the impression that the board's decision has changed the dues, unless and until a point of order is raised.

(*not Messrs. Honemann and Gerber)

As Josh Martin noted in #31, a point of order would not be appropriate at a meeting of the membership's assembly -- because no rule was violated at a meeting of the assembly. But a rule certainly has been broken by the board when it adopted a motion to take action outside its authority, and I see no reason for the board not to correct itself by determining that the motion was null and void.

But I'm curious as to why you think the situation is different when the assembly itself adopts a motion that conflicts with the bylaws, which comes under part (a) of page 251 in the rules for raising a point of order. Suppose the assembly itself adopts a motion to raise the dues, when the dues are already specified in the bylaws. Would you say that since the motion is a nullity, there is no need to raise a point of order? In such a case, the assembly itself has no more authority to raise the dues (without amending the bylaws upon proper notice, etc.) than does the board or anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Josh Martin noted in #31, a point of order would not be appropriate at a meeting of the membership's assembly -- because no rule was violated at a meeting of the assembly. But a rule certainly has been broken by the board when it adopted a motion to take action outside its authority, and I see no reason for the board not to correct itself by determining that the motion was null and void.

But I'm curious as to why you think the situation is different when the assembly itself adopts a motion that conflicts with the bylaws, which comes under part (a) of page 251 in the rules for raising a point of order. Suppose the assembly itself adopts a motion to raise the dues, when the dues are already specified in the bylaws. Would you say that since the motion is a nullity, there is no need to raise a point of order? In such a case, the assembly itself has no more authority to raise the dues (without amending the bylaws upon proper notice, etc.) than does the board or anyone else.

I'm not clear on your curiosity. Either a motion conflicts with the bylaws or it doesn't. It's my understanding from Trina's example that the motion does not conflict with the bylaws; the board simply is not authorized to take such action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not clear on your curiosity. Either a motion conflicts with the bylaws or it doesn't. It's my understanding from Trina's example that the motion does not conflict with the bylaws; the board simply is not authorized to take such action.

To add more clarity, the assembly of the society should address the board's action with a motion to Ratify or Censure, not with a point of order.

The board should have made a recommendation for the proposed action, instead of trying to adopt the motion beyond its authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add more clarity, the assembly of the society should address the board's action with a motion to Ratify or Censure, not with a point of order.

The board should have made a recommendation for the proposed action, instead of trying to adopt the motion beyond its authority.

Tim,

You wrote, "The board didn't change the dues, since it doesn't have the authority, so no rule is being violated."

I don't see how you came to the conclusion that no rule was violated. Don't you think that a motion at a board meeting to take action beyond the board's authority is a violation of the rules? How would you rule on a point of order made at the board meeting at the time the motion is made?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim,

You wrote, "The board didn't change the dues, since it doesn't have the authority, so no rule is being violated."

I don't see how you came to the conclusion that no rule was violated. Don't you think that a motion at a board meeting to take action beyond the board's authority is a violation of the rules? How would you rule on a point of order made at the board meeting at the time the motion is made?

It was my intention to say that in the meeting of the parent body no rule is being violated. I was not addressing the board meeting. I see that I was unclear about that.

In the board meeting, I would rule the point well taken, if the point was that the motion is out of order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was my intention to say that in the meeting of the parent body no rule is being violated. I was not addressing the board meeting. I see that I was unclear about that.

In the board meeting, I would rule the point well taken, if the point was that the motion is out of order.

And would you agree that the point of order could properly be raised in a board meeting even much after the motion was declared adopted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And would you agree that the point of order could properly be raised in a board meeting even much after the motion was declared adopted?

Yes, it's definitely of a continuing nature.

It's important for parliamentarians to know that p. 251 does NOT say the only exceptions to the rule that a point of order must be made at the time of the breach are those contained in the numbered list found on p. 251. It says the exceptions are those that are of a continuing nature.

Furthermore, it's important for the members of this hypothetical organization to know that, even without a point of order, the dues have not gone up, since the board's motion is null and void.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...