Guest Marsha H Posted July 3, 2012 at 10:35 PM Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 at 10:35 PM If a motion is made (and passed by all but a few members) that would result in a letter to be sent to a government body, can any member request to see that letter? There are concerns that the personal opinions of the secretary will be included in the letter, and the general membership ideally would like the opportunity to view the letter (and maybe have some say in approving it) before its sent out. The secretary is so far refusing to make such letters available to anyone (even executive members with opposing views) who requests to see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 3, 2012 at 10:38 PM Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 at 10:38 PM If a motion is made (and passed by all but a few members) that would result in a letter to be sent to a government body, can any member request to see that letter? There are concerns that the personal opinions of the secretary will be included in the letter, and the general membership ideally would like the opportunity to view the letter (and maybe have some say in approving it) before its sent out. The secretary is so far refusing to make such letters available to anyone (even executive members with opposing views) who requests to see them.It depends on the wording of the adopted motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted July 3, 2012 at 10:48 PM Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 at 10:48 PM It depends on the wording of the adopted motion.It does?I got the impression that this motion was adopted by the board ("the general membership ideally would like the opportunity to view the letter") and I'm pretty sure that the general membership could order that the contents of the letter be disclosed, regardless of the wording of the adopted motion. In other words, I can't imagine a motion that would forever prevent the disclosure of the contents of the letter. 'Cause nothing is forever. Except approved minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 3, 2012 at 11:21 PM Report Share Posted July 3, 2012 at 11:21 PM It does?I got the impression that this motion was. . .I suppose it depends on your impression as well. It's nearly impossible to know the effect of an original main motion without knowing the wording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted July 4, 2012 at 01:29 PM Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 at 01:29 PM I move that we instruct the secretary to send a letter to XXX regarding such and such....VSI move that the secretary draft a letter to XXX regarding such and such to be presented to this group no later than 7/4/2012.I definitely see Tim's point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted July 4, 2012 at 01:51 PM Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 at 01:51 PM I see that I overlooked the "before it is sent out" part and so now I also definitely see Tim's point.PdqgDr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 5, 2012 at 03:27 AM Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 at 03:27 AM Thank you for your input on this.The motion was to take a vote to see how the general membership felt on an issue. If they were in approval of pursuing the issue, then a letter would be sent to the municipal authourity asking them to consider the issue that was voted on by the membership. The membership was overwhelmingly in favour. But the secretary was adamantly opposed. In the past, when the secretary was opposed to something and sent a letter (which she refused to allow anyone, even other executive members to see) we've heard from the municipality that 'the association' is not in favour, and all issues stop there.So I'm inquiring whether or not the general membership, or even other executive members, have the right to see correspondence (ideally in this case before its sent out) or even after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted July 5, 2012 at 08:05 AM Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 at 08:05 AM I still don't see Mr Wynn's point (post 2), and completely see Guest Edgar's (post #3). What plausible wording would allow for the membership to be prevented from seeing the secretary's file copy of the letter once it is sent, or to be prevented from seeing the secretary's draught before it is sent if the motion, or organization policy, says so (trivial quibbles aside)?And Guest Guest (or Marsha H), why has the organisation put up with this more than once?(Extra credit: if the assembly desires that someone write and send the letter other than the secretary, or the corresponding secretary if that's the setup, would that require a suspencion of the rules?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Larry Cisar Posted July 5, 2012 at 09:32 AM Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 at 09:32 AM The letter was ordered sent and the secretary should send it. But all the documents of the organization are the property of the organization so it is sort of like minutes. The members have a right to see what was in the letter at a convenient time. I think the secretary is out of line in refusing to show what was sent. How are people to know that the assigned job was properly carried out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted July 5, 2012 at 09:59 AM Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 at 09:59 AM ... How are people to know that the assigned job was properly carried out?Don't they already know that in the past it wasn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 5, 2012 at 11:45 AM Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 at 11:45 AM I still don't see Mr Wynn's point (post 2), and completely see Guest Edgar's (post #3). What plausible wording would allow for the membership to be prevented from seeing the secretary's file copy of the letter once it is sent, or to be prevented from seeing the secretary's draught before it is sent if the motion, or organization policy, says so (trivial quibbles aside)?And Guest Guest (or Marsha H), why has the organisation put up with this more than once?(Extra credit: if the assembly desires that someone write and send the letter other than the secretary, or the corresponding secretary if that's the setup, would that require a suspencion of the rules?)You're right; you missed Mr. Wynn's point. Whether or not the letter is required to be shown to the general membership for approval before it is sent will depend on the wording of the motion. As for the extra credit round, are you suggesting that a rule having application outside a meeting context can be suspended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted July 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM ...(Extra credit: if the assembly desires that someone write and send the letter other than the secretary, or the corresponding secretary if that's the setup, would that require a suspencion of the rules?)If the bylaws say nothing specific about correspondence, then I suppose the phrase on p. 459, under duties of the secretary, would govern:'to conduct the general correspondence of the organization -- that is, correspondence that is not a function proper to other offices or to committees' (RONR 11th ed. p. 459 ll. 19-22).Would that language really preclude the organization from adopting a motion that the President (for example) should write a particular letter conveying the organization's position to local government? The members certainly might feel that this is a proper function for the organization's President (interfacing with government). Note also, under duties of the President, is included 'authenticate by his or her signature, when necessary, all acts, orders, and proceedings of the assembly.' (p. 450 ll. 22-23). So, even if the secretary is left to write the letter, it appears the membership could word its motion so as to require the President to sign (and thereby authenticate the contents before sending) such a letter. Perhaps the membership could even choose to form a committee to draft an important letter, especially if past experience has shown that this job is not in safe hands with the Secretary.I agree that the secretary does not have the right to refuse to reveal the contents of letters that have already been sent (now or in the past), if these letters are part of the records of the organization (as it seems they should be)... although correspondence of the organization is not specifically listed among the contents of 'record books' to be maintained by the secretary (p. 459 ll. 13-16).I share Mr. Tesser's curiosity as to why the organization has put up with this behavior from the secretary (essentially falsifying the content of correspondence ordered by the society) more than once... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 5, 2012 at 01:17 PM Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 at 01:17 PM If the bylaws say nothing specific about correspondence, then I suppose the phrase on p. 459, under duties of the secretary, would govern:'to conduct the general correspondence of the organization -- that is, correspondence that is not a function proper to other offices or to committees' (RONR 11th ed. p. 459 ll. 19-22).Would that language really preclude the organization from adopting a motion that the President (for example) should write a particular letter conveying the organization's position to local government? The members certainly might feel that this is a proper function for the organization's President (interfacing with government).This could be an interesting question, but please make up your mind whether you're asking about correspondence that is or is not a function proper to other offices or committees.Regardless, the assembly could certainly determine the contents of any correspondence itself, or assign the task of drafting it to anyone it wishes to, and then just leave the secretary the task of actually sending it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted July 5, 2012 at 03:47 PM Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 at 03:47 PM Umm ... I see that I got Mr Wynn's point, without noticing the nicety with which he made it: Gary c Tesser, on 05 July 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:... What plausible wording would allow for the membership ... to be prevented from seeing the secretary's draught before it is sent if the motion, or organization policy, says so ...?[snip](Extra credit: if the assembly desires that someone write and send the letter other than the secretary, or the corresponding secretary if that's the setup, would that require a suspencion of the rules?)[snip] Whether or not the letter is required to be shown to the general membership for approval before it is sent will depend on the wording of the motion. As for the extra credit round, are you suggesting that a rule having application outside a meeting context can be suspended?Indeed I wouldn't have thought so, or that rules of order govern what the secretary does at home or on the subway or at the beach between meetings, until that ruction a few months ago over on the Advanced Discussion forum when it was established otherwise because Goldsworthy, Foulkes, and I lost, maybe because we aren't on the Authorship Team, or aren't lawyers, or can't figure out to get our big smiling faced photos onto the Internet, or whatever. I would have thought that the top of p. 257 in the Tenth was the point, but I haven't yet figured out what its replacement in the 11th (empty space) means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted July 5, 2012 at 03:59 PM Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 at 03:59 PM ..... or can't figure out to get our big smiling faced photos onto the Internet....You don't like my avatar? I'm hurt. Sure, I'm not smiling a big SEG smile, and it's been digitized to disguise my ruddy skin, and it's b&w, but I'm still hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 5, 2012 at 04:19 PM Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 at 04:19 PM Indeed I wouldn't have thought so, or that rules of order govern what the secretary does at home or on the subway or at the beach between meetings, until that ruction a few months ago. . .For the applicable rule governing suspension, see RONR (11th ed.), p. 264, ll. 29-30, which applies to any variety of rule, SRO or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted July 6, 2012 at 05:09 AM Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 at 05:09 AM For the applicable rule governing suspension, see RONR (11th ed.), p. 264, ll. 29-30, which applies to any variety of rule, SRO or otherwise.Thank you for pointing it out; and indeed, that statement does make more where it is now than in a subsection labelled "majority vote," as previously.Assuming, then, that the rule about suspension is universal and inviolable (use a cello instead), and that we don't want to go to the trouble, following Mr Gerber's suggestion, of taking the secretary by the hand to the nearest mailbox and watching her drop the letter in. Does anyone think there's an easier way than adopting a special rule of order to supersede the rule that Trina (post 12) cited (p. 459, lines 19-22)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted July 6, 2012 at 10:39 PM Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 at 10:39 PM The best way to make sure that the exact position of the assembly is made known to the municipal governing body is to put exactly what you want to say into a resolution. You can go nuts with Whereas: clauses explaining your reasoning in full, and then end it with something like: ...now, therefore, be itResolved, that the Rockland Parrot Society is fully in support of the passage of Proposition 666; and be it furtherResolved, that a certified copy of this resolution be transmitted by the Secretary to the Clerk of the governing body.Or words to that effect. Sorry if I got the format messed up, but you see the point. If the Secretary is directed to send an exact copy of the resolution, there can be no wiggle room for editorializing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:07 PM Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:07 PM Thank you for pointing it out; and indeed, that statement does make more where it is now than in a subsection labelled "majority vote," as previously.Assuming, then, that the rule about suspension is universal and inviolable (use a cello instead), and that we don't want to go to the trouble, following Mr Gerber's suggestion, of taking the secretary by the hand to the nearest mailbox and watching her drop the letter in. Does anyone think there's an easier way than adopting a special rule of order to supersede the rule that Trina (post 12) cited (p. 459, lines 19-22)?I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but I'll answer anyway. It's important to remember that having the duty of conducting the general correspondence of the organization does not give the secretary control over the content of a letter, any more than the duty of preparing the minutes gives him control over the content of the minutes. I doubt there would be any confusion if this were a question about the treasurer and the content of a check he was ordered to write. If the assembly turned it over to the treasurer to handle on his own, such as "make a donation to ABC," the poor fellow will just have to do the best he can. If the instructions were exact, as they should be, he merely has to follow them to carry out the will of the assembly. How can an assembly expect a secretary to draft a letter that represents its wishes, if those wishes haven't been decided? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted July 9, 2012 at 11:14 AM Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 at 11:14 AM If a motion is made (and passed by all but a few members) that would result in a letter to be sent to a government body, can any member request to see that letter? There are concerns that the personal opinions of the secretary will be included in the letter, and the general membership ideally would like the opportunity to view the letter (and maybe have some say in approving it) before its sent out. The secretary is so far refusing to make such letters available to anyone (even executive members with opposing views) who requests to see them.The motion was to take a vote to see how the general membership felt on an issue. If they were in approval of pursuing the issue, then a letter would be sent to the municipal authourity asking them to consider the issue that was voted on by the membership. The membership was overwhelmingly in favour. But the secretary was adamantly opposed. In the past, when the secretary was opposed to something and sent a letter (which she refused to allow anyone, even other executive members to see) we've heard from the municipality that 'the association' is not in favour, and all issues stop there.So I'm inquiring whether or not the general membership, or even other executive members, have the right to see correspondence (ideally in this case before its sent out) or even after the fact....It's important to remember that having the duty of conducting the general correspondence of the organization does not give the secretary control over the content of a letter, any more than the duty of preparing the minutes gives him control over the content of the minutes.I doubt there would be any confusion if this were a question about the treasurer and the content of a check he was ordered to write. If the assembly turned it over to the treasurer to handle on his own, such as "make a donation to ABC," the poor fellow will just have to do the best he can. If the instructions were exact, as they should be, he merely has to follow them to carry out the will of the assembly.How can an assembly expect a secretary to draft a letter that represents its wishes, if those wishes haven't been decided?What Mr. Wynn says makes perfect sense. However, the fundamental problem in the situation described by the original poster is that this particular secretary is (apparently) not trustworthy. RONR generally assumes that the secretary is trustworthy (just as, in a broader sense, the rules assume that members wish to treat one another fairly and that they wish to abide by the rules). Drawing another parallel with the processing of the minutes, when an assembly makes corrections to the draft minutes, it assumes that the secretary will simply implement those corrections (whether or not he/she agrees with them personally). There is no routine check-the-minutes-again-at-the-next-meeting step to see if the corrections were made as ordered.In the situation described by the original poster, it seems that the will of the assembly was quite clear (although probably not in resolution form, with lots of 'whereas' clauses, as recommended by Mr. Novosielski). If the secretary then writes and sends a letter that is diametrically opposed to the will of the assembly (and the guest suggests that the secretary has actually done this in the past), then that's just plain dishonest; it certainly goes well beyond missing some of the nuances of what the assembly wanted (which would be an expected hazard if the assembly didn't prescribed the exact words to be sent to the recipient). The assembly should be able to trust its secretary. If it can't trust her, she should be disciplined and/or replaced in that office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.