Stipin salaries

[Guest Tracy]

I belong to a Ladies Auxiliary at a volunteer fire company. Every year it is customary to give each officer a stipin salary for their work. (a one time payment at the end of the year) This amounts to $25.00 for the Pres., VP, Secretary, and Fin. Secretary and $100.00 for the Treasurer. Our elections for these Officer positions are held in November and the newly elected officers take office in January as we do not have a meeting in December. At our meeting in January a motion was made to increase the President and Secretary stipin to $50.00 for all of their work. It was countered by a discussion that this "raise" could not be put into effect until 2013, because the officers had already been elected and that this should have been bought up and motioned on before the election in November. I cannot find anything in Robert's Rules on how this is either correct that the motion can be made for the raises this year or that the motion that was made was incorrect and the raises would have to wait until 2013. Can someone either clarify as to which is correct or point me in the direction of the correct section of Robert's Rule. On a side note, the motion that was made in favor of the raises did have a second before it was countered and discussion began on it not being able to made. Thank you for your help in this matter. We have a meeting next week and are looking for guidance.

[tctheatc]

"I move to raise the (stipend?) for President and for Secretary to 50$, such raise to be retroactive to 1/1/2012." I don't see anything wrong with that.

If someone opines during debate that the motion is out of order, let them show where it says that. Did the chair rule the motion out of order? What was the outcome of the discussion? what's the motion's status?

[Steven Britton]

"I move to raise the (stipend?) for President and for Secretary to 50$, such raise to be retroactive to 1/1/2012." I don't see anything wrong with that.

If someone opines during debate that the motion is out of order, let them show where it says that. Did the chair rule the motion out of order? What was the outcome of the discussion? what's the motion's status?

I believe the motion that Mr. tctheatc is referencing is the Incidental Main Motion, Amend Something Previously Adopted. Without previous notice, it would require 2/3rds vote for adoption.

[tctheatc]

Not knowing what the disposition of the original motion was, I was actually just offering an example of how (specifically) the motion could be made to apply to the previous year. I don't know if they've adopted the motion and then decided it couldn't start until 2013. If that's the case, though, I suppose you're right.

BTW, call me TC.

[Josh Martin]

"I move to raise the (stipend?) for President and for Secretary to 50$, such raise to be retroactive to 1/1/2012." I don't see anything wrong with that.

I don't either, but I don't think the "such raise to be retroactive to 1/1/2012," since the stipend is not paid until the end of the year. Therefore, changing the stipend is not really "retroactive."

[Gary c Tesser]

Since the Original Poster, Guest_Tracy, said that the payments are "customary," it might be that there is no ongoing motion to amend -- that each year's payment to the officers is made upon the adoption of an Original Main motion, which would be independent and irrespective of any previous year's events. IN which case, the motion made last month erroneously proposed an increase; it should simply have been to pay $50 to each of the specified officers. (But I will point out that that error is of no consequence.)

I think I agree with the other posters, TC and Steven Britton, that nothing in Robert's Rules (and probably nothing in the fire company's rules, or the auxiliary's, though Guest_Tracy might check there, to be certain) would require this raise to wait until 2013, or even until tomorrow (p. 597 - 598 not applying). And, it doesn't matter whether the payment at issue is about the end-of-year payment for December 2011 or 2012, or any other year.

Perhaps most importantly, Guest Tracy, is tctheatc's second paragraph (in Post 2). Did the chair rule on the objection? On anything? Where is the motion, lying in bits on the floor?

Guest_Tracy, how about it?

(BTW, TC, although you're no longer asking, no, of course it's not weird.)

N. B. When I mention p. 597 &c, I'm referring to RONR, 11th Ed., though some of you, and sometimes I, prefer a book on which the ink is dry, and also conveniently in three parts like mine has been since 2003. I partly mention this because I think it's my first citation of the week, and I'm tickled about it.

[Gary c Tesser]

I don't either, but I don't think the "such raise to be retroactive to 1/1/2012," since the stipend is not paid until the end of the year. Therefore, changing the stipend is not really "retroactive."

I don't think it's retroactive, either, unless they are dealing with the end-of-year payment for 2011, in which case I'll join in quibbling that it wouldn't be retroactive to January 2012, unless they're trying to back-date a check, in which case I don't remember really what "retroactive" means.

Josh, what's that sticking out from above your right ear?

[Josh Martin]

Josh, what's that sticking out from above your right ear?

If you mean your right (looking at the picture), it's a chair. If you actually mean my right ear, I'm not sure. I can't quite make it out even from the full-sized version of that picture.

[Steven Britton]

If you mean your right (looking at the picture), it's a chair. If you actually mean my right ear, I'm not sure. I can't quite make it out even from the full-sized version of that picture.

Josh, When I went to your personal section on this site, there appears to be a reflection off a Hardwood Floor.

[tctheatc]

"I move to raise the (stipend?) for President and for Secretary to 50$, such raise to be retroactive to 1/1/2012." I don't see anything wrong with that.

I don't either, but I don't think the "such raise to be retroactive to 1/1/2012," since the stipend is not paid until the end of the year. Therefore, changing the stipend is not really "retroactive."

I tend to agree, Josh. But I threw it in to placate the members in the OP's group who believe the calendar somehow prohibits the stipend from being raised. They claim it had to have been decided earlier (the previous year). Figured this was just a way to put a sock in it for them.

[Guest Tracy]

This is Tracy, First I would like to thank everyone who is trying to help me out. We have nothing about this in our By-laws that refers to the stipens, elections or nominations for that matter. At this point the motion was tabled until next weeks meeting and the information that I could find in Roberts Rules. The motion was not ruled out of order and a majority of the members had agreed to the motion before the objection from the Treasurer was raised, so I am not sure if that changes anything either. The Treasurer's arguement is that if the stipends were going to be raised that it should have been bought up before nominations and elections in the event that it may have persuaded someone to run or not. The fact that these have been customary for many, many years all members know that at least $25 is given.

I guess the bottom line of an answer that I am looking for is if there is nothing specific in Robert's Rules about this particular subject, does that mean that majority rules?? I have belonged to this organization since 2005 and have been the Secretary for the past 5 years. I think personally that some of the issues are because the By-laws have not been updated since 1996. Many of our members have 30+ years into the organization and do not accept change easily.

Thank you all again for your assistance in trying to resolve this so that I know how to advise at next weeks meeting.

[Steven Britton]

Hi Tracy:

First, the word customary has a specific meaning in parliamentary law. It references an unwritten rule, something that may be traditionally or otherwise done, without the actual adopting of a rule.

My suggestion is that you look back through the minutes to see if this was ever done in relationship to a motion.

It could have first been done in relationship to a standing rule, which would require a two thirds vote to amend the amount (without notice.)

Also, it could have originally been done as an original main motion, that was renewed, yearly.

The later example would only need a majority vote for adoption. Without notice, the former example would require a 2/3rds vote.

If you don't presently have a standing rule in this area, maybe its time to adopt one; providing your bylaws don't prohibit the stipends.

[Guest Nancy N.]

First a bit of housecleaning. Tracy, you said, "a majority of the members had agreed to the motion before the objection from the Treasurer was raised, so I am not sure if that changes anything either." Do you mean that the motion was adopted, so that the new stipends will be paid unless the treasurer, or someone else, halts the process? Hmm, yes that might change something.

But basically, Tracy, I see two main things for you to get from this. First, there is nothing in RONR that prohibits changing stipends. There doesn't have to be anything specific that allows changing stipends, either, because of the general principle that the organization is free to do what it wants (within limits, obviously). These quotations from RONR, 11th Edition (with the new-car smell) should settle that:

"Fundamentally, under the rules of parliamentary law, a deliberative body is a free agent -- free to do what it wants to do with the greatest measure of protection to itself and of consideration of the rights of its members (p. lii, which is Roman numeral for 52)."

"A deliberative assembly ... is a group of people, having or assuming freedom to act in concert, meeting to determine, in full and free discussion, courses of action to be taken in the name of the entire group (page 1 -- yes, right there on the first page!)."

The second thing to get is the proper way to process objections, according to Robert's Rules (and common sense). The point being that nobody gets to have the motion stop dead in the water (being "tabled") by just arguing about it. Someone makes a motion -- in this case, to change the stipend (or just naming the new stipend). If someone objects, he can raise a Point of Order, pointing out that the rules are being broken. The chairman asks the objector what rule he thinks is being broken, and the chair makes a ruling on whether the objector is right about the violation ("well taken") or wrong ("not well taken"*). In this case, the treasurer would say that the change in stipends should have been made before the elections. Probably next the chair should reasonably ask the treasurer, "But Treasurer," the chair might placatingly ask, though perhaps slightly bending the rules, "what rule says we can't change the stipend now?" I personally think the argument that the change in stipend would have affected the elections holds no water, but the treasurer can take her shot; you never know.

But more likely: if the treasurer can't name a specific rule, then the chairman rules the objection (the Point of Order) not well taken, and the group moves on to process the motion to make the new stipends.

(Or the treasurer, or anyone else, appeals the decision of the chair. Tracy, more on that if you want.)

Probably in short, then, yes: majority rules.

_______

* To my ongoing surprise, the obvious opposite of "well taken" should be "poorly taken," but I seldom see it used.