Guest Equinedad Posted February 21, 2012 at 03:39 AM Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 at 03:39 AM I am Parlimentarian of an American Legion Post in GA. The first and most basic requirement for membership in the Legion is that a service member MUST have served an absolute minimum of one day under a Federal military unit. One could be in the Reserves or National Guard and if the above requirement was not met, that person would not be eligible for AL membership. We have a "member" who joined another Post in GA and then moved to our Post. The first Post he joined did not adequately research his military service and we have subsequently determined that he did not meet the above requirement. This determination has been investigated at our State level and they came to the same conclusion. This person asserts that he should have a vote in the resolution of the issue of his admitability to the Legion. My stance is that since he never met the above requirement, he was never a member of the Legion and thus could not have a vote in the resolution of the issue. Many Thanks - I welcome your views and suggestions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted February 21, 2012 at 04:30 AM Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 at 04:30 AM RONR doesn't really provide direction in your case. However, the closest parallel I could find was regarding challenging the seating of a delegate by the Credentials Committee at a Convention in which case the person in question doesn't vote on the question (RONR p. 616 ll. 26-28). But stay tuned for other thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 21, 2012 at 05:56 AM Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 at 05:56 AM I am Parlimentarian of an American Legion Post in GA. The first and most basic requirement for membership in the Legion is that a service member MUST have served an absolute minimum of one day under a Federal military unit. One could be in the Reserves or National Guard and if the above requirement was not met, that person would not be eligible for AL membership. We have a "member" who joined another Post in GA and then moved to our Post. The first Post he joined did not adequately research his military service and we have subsequently determined that he did not meet the above requirement. This determination has been investigated at our State level and they came to the same conclusion. This person asserts that he should have a vote in the resolution of the issue of his admitability to the Legion. My stance is that since he never met the above requirement, he was never a member of the Legion and thus could not have a vote in the resolution of the issue. I think I'll need more information on how you intend on resolving this issue to be able to answer this question.Of course, if the issue is as clear-cut as you suggest, it seems this would be a purely academic question. Or is there actually reason to believe one vote might make a difference? RONR doesn't really provide direction in your case. However, the closest parallel I could find was regarding challenging the seating of a delegate by the Credentials Committee at a Convention in which case the person in question doesn't vote on the question (RONR p. 616 ll. 26-28). But stay tuned for other thoughts. I don't think that situation is quite analogous. In the case of a challenge to the report of the credentials committee, the membership of the convention is not yet finally established, which is not the case here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burke Balch Posted February 21, 2012 at 09:14 AM Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 at 09:14 AM It's important not to mix up procedural and substantive issues. If I understand the factual situation correctly, the individual in question, rightly or wrongly, has been accepted and treated as a member of the Legion post. The effort now is to remove him from membership on the ground that he was wrongly admitted. That being the case, and assuming there are no superseding bylaw provisions, the individual must be regarded as a member until an appropriate process is used to determine that he is not entitled to membership; one cannot assume the result until the process has been carried out. (I assume that the statement, "This determination has been investigated at our State level and they came to the same conclusion." means that the higher-level organization has given advice on the meaning of the eligibility criteria, not formally acted to deprive him of membership in a manner binding on the post.)As an analogy, suppose that a candidate for president has been announced as elected and has assumed office despite being ineligible for that position under the bylaws. (Let's say the bylaws state that to be eligible to serve as president one must previously have served two terms on the board and she had served only one.). A point of order may be made at any time during the continuance of the breach (i.e., continuance in office) that the individual was improperly elected [RONR (11th ed.), p. 445, ll. 8-22]. However, since her election was announced and she is occupying the office, she must be treated as president until that point of order is raised and ruled upon (or, supposing the point of order is ruled not well taken, until an appeal is taken and the vote on the appeal overturns the decision of the chair). Thus, if somebody points out her ineligibilty in an email to all the members between meetings of the assembly, that does not present her from assuming the chair at the assembly's next meeting, calling it to order, and presiding until the point of order is made and she is ruled to have been improperly elected. (It is a separate issue whether she herself ought to rule on the point of order; cf. p. 652n.)In the case at hand, presumably a point of order could be raised during a post meeting that Member X ought to be declared not to be a member based on his failure to meet the eligibilty criteria. If the chair chooses to submit the POO for decision by the assembly (see p. 254, l. 8 to p. 255, l. 22), may X vote? It may be that X should not vote because it is "a question in which he has a direct personal . . . interest not common to other members of the organization," p. 407, ll. 22-25, but "no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances, " p. 407, ll. 30-31. Consequently, since X had been (however erroneously) accepted as a member by the post, he could not be prevented from voting in such circumstances on the question of whether or not he is properly a member (or from participating in debate on the issue, see p. 249, ll. 21-24). He must be treated as a member, and accorded the rights of membership, until the point of order has been resolved in a manner that officially declares him not to be a member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 21, 2012 at 11:55 AM Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 at 11:55 AM It's important ......I for one find this argument to be exquisitely presented. Thank you for taking the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted February 21, 2012 at 02:41 PM Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 at 02:41 PM I for one find this argument to be exquisitely presented. Thank you for taking the time.Yes, it's always nice, for a change, to see a long post and know that every word is going to be worth reading… with the exception of "present," which should have been "prevent." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 21, 2012 at 02:59 PM Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 at 02:59 PM Yes, it's always nice, for a change, to see a long post and know that every word is going to be worth readingIndeed.… with the exception of "present," which should have been "prevent." Well, considering how many he got right, I figured on cutting him the necessary slack there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted February 21, 2012 at 06:03 PM Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 at 06:03 PM Well, considering how many he got right, I figured on cutting him the necessary slack there. How's he going to learn, if we don't provide the proper guidance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 21, 2012 at 10:48 PM Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 at 10:48 PM In the case at hand, presumably a point of order could be raised during a post meeting that Member X ought to be declared not to be a member based on his failure to meet the eligibilty criteria. If the chair chooses to submit the POO for decision by the assembly (see p. 254, l. 8 to p. 255, l. 22), may X vote? It may be that X should not vote because it is "a question in which he has a direct personal . . . interest not common to other members of the organization," p. 407, ll. 22-25, but "no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances, " p. 407, ll. 30-31. Consequently, since X had been (however erroneously) accepted as a member by the post, he could not be prevented from voting in such circumstances on the question of whether or not he is properly a member (or from participating in debate on the issue, see p. 249, ll. 21-24). He must be treated as a member, and accorded the rights of membership, until the point of order has been resolved in a manner that officially declares him not to be a member.What if, instead of submitting the Point of Order to the assembly, the chair ruled the point well taken and a member then appealed from the decision of the chair? Would the individual be considered not to be a member (and therefore, unable to vote) unless and until the chair's decision was reversed on appeal?These are the sorts of issues I had in mind when I said that more facts were required. I regret that I delved into substance over procedure in my comment about how "clear-cut" the situation was and detracted from the central question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest equinedad Posted February 22, 2012 at 03:56 AM Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 at 03:56 AM Rereading my own post, the second sentence should have ended: "... of one day assigned to a military unit under Federal control.".The "member" in question, since my posting here yesterday, has said that he intends to appeal any adverse action to American Legion Headquarters. My first thought here is: if he has documented evidence that shows that he does indeed meet the AL basic requirement, why the H. hasn't he presented it and ended the entire brouhaha? My situation is further complicated by three other (unreported in my first post)considerations: #1 - The "member" in question and the Commander of my Post are best buddies and the Commander is doing everything he can to obfuscate the issue. Under our bylaws, upon a written demand by at least 10 members of the Post, the Commander must call a special meeting; notifying all members by first class mail with the date of the meeting to be 10 days from the date of the notification letters were mailed. The Commander was served with such a letter signed by a dozen members in good standing of the Post and the Commander's response was that he was going to take a 2 week vacation. No parlimentary problem, really, because the resolution of the situation would devolve to the Senior Vice Commander or a successive list of 5 Junior Vice Commanders. #2 - the "member' in question is the Financial Officer for the Post (total control of all finances) and, #3 - he is the Chairman of the Post Executive Committee.I have read everyone's posts above 4 or 5 times and have lots to absorb. The State Commander attended our meeting of last Wednesday evening (2/15) and left early, pleading other duties. Since he is the second level of authority above our Post (the District Office, the first level, also concurred with our finding) I'll freely admit that if he had just stood up and announced that the "member" in question was, in fact, ineligible to be a member; demanded that persons keys to the building, all financial documents appertaining to the Post, etc, etc, that he would have saved me a lot of headaches. Nonetheless - I indend to remain completely impartial and do the best with the mess that I have.Again - many thanks for all your posts. At least I have some new ideas on how to proceed. When the issue is resolved, I'll report back.Note to TJB: Your first paragraph is, as the Brits say, "spot on".Note to JM: Enjoyed your posts. Best to all: Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burke Balch Posted February 23, 2012 at 02:08 AM Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 at 02:08 AM What if, instead of submitting the Point of Order to the assembly, the chair ruled the point well taken and a member then appealed from the decision of the chair? Would the individual be considered not to be a member (and therefore, unable to vote) unless and until the chair's decision was reversed on appeal?An intriguing question. I think the answer may be provided by RONR (11th ed.), p. 255, l. 29 to p. 256, l. 3: "By one member making (or 'taking') the appeal and another seconding it, the question is taken from the chair and vested in the assembly for final decision." Were it not for this sentence, a plausible case might be made that the chair's ruling on a Point of Order resolves the issue until overturned on appeal, with the consequence that the individual declared not to be a member by the chair's ruling could not vote on the Appeal. Under the quoted sentence, however, it appears that the making and seconding of the appeal effectively puts the chair's ruling in limbo ("the question is taken from the chair") until the assembly votes either to sustain or overturn it ("vested in the assembly for final decision"). Perhaps the analogy is inexact, but I am led to think of the circumstance in which a case pending in a state court is "removed" to a federal court -- with the consequence that whatever the state court might have had to say becomes immaterial because jurisdiction is now vested in the federal court. Or, to use another legal analogy, it may be that the making and seconding of an appeal operates as an automatic stay of the chair's decision pending appeal. I am inclined, therefore, to think that the answer to the question is that the individual whom the chair ruled not to be a member nevertheless has the right to vote on the appeal -- even though, as suggested in my earlier post, he "should" abstain.By the way, thanks for the spell-checking on my earlier post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.