Guest Guest5 Posted July 28, 2012 at 12:42 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 12:42 PM At a recent board meeting there was a motion, which was seconded. One member objected to the motion. How should the objection have been handled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted July 28, 2012 at 12:47 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 12:47 PM That depends. What was the nature of this member's objection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest5 Posted July 28, 2012 at 01:06 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 01:06 PM The motion was to change our logo, he objected to it. It was never dealt with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted July 28, 2012 at 01:08 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 01:08 PM If it is believed that considering that motion would be strongly undesirable, a member may object to its consideration. it would take a 2/3 vote to sustain that objection. See p267 in RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted July 28, 2012 at 01:09 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 01:09 PM The motion was to change our logo, he objected to it. It was never dealt with.This post appeared while I was typing my previous one. If it's simply a matter of disagreeing with the motion to change the logo, an objection is likely not warranted. The member should simply state his opinions in debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 28, 2012 at 01:29 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 01:29 PM A motion to amend something previously adopted is not an original main motion, so it is not subject to the motion to an Objection to the Consideration of the Question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted July 28, 2012 at 01:38 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 01:38 PM It didn't occur to me to look at it that way, Tim. Thanks for the correction. You experts on here continually amaze me with the depth of understanding of the nuances of each topic.Here's a question for you: is it possible such an issue could be an original main motion? For example, a motion to create a new logo, and a subsequent vote on the 2 choices? Or is that splitting hairs? I'm asking not to be contrary but for my own education and understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest5 Posted July 28, 2012 at 01:46 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 01:46 PM I was not previously adopted, it was as follows:Motion: To change the current logo to another, seconded, then the objection came. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted July 28, 2012 at 01:52 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 01:52 PM The logo in question was previously adopted at some point, is what I think Tim's getting at. So this new motion would amend something previously adopted, to wit, the original logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest5 Posted July 28, 2012 at 03:06 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 03:06 PM Ok so I'm clear. Because there was a previous motion to adopt the original logo, then the motion to change the logo would not be subjected to an objection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 28, 2012 at 03:09 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 03:09 PM It didn't occur to me to look at it that way, Tim. Thanks for the correction. You experts on here continually amaze me with the depth of understanding of the nuances of each topic.Here's a question for you: is it possible such an issue could be an original main motion? For example, a motion to create a new logo, and a subsequent vote on the 2 choices? Or is that splitting hairs? I'm asking not to be contrary but for my own education and understanding.From a parliamentary standpoint, the matter is not concerned with a physical change to the logo; it's concerned with which specific version of a logo is the official logo of the organization. To change the official logo from a green turtle to a blue turtle is analogous with changing the official name of the organization from "Green Turtle Group" to "Blue Turtle Group." If a logo has been adopted, any change to it is effected through the motion to ASPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted July 28, 2012 at 03:10 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 03:10 PM Ok so I'm clear. Because there was a previous motion to adopt the original logo, then the motion to change the logo would not be subjected to an objection?No. One thing has nothing to do with the other. What was the basis for the objection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 28, 2012 at 03:14 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 03:14 PM Ok so I'm clear. Because there was a previous motion to adopt the original logo, then the motion to change the logo would not be subjected to an objection?If the logo was adopted, a motion proposing a change to it would not be subject to the motion to Object to the Consideration of a Question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted July 28, 2012 at 03:19 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 03:19 PM From a parliamentary standpoint, the matter is not concerned with a physical change to the logo; it's concerned with which specific version of a logo is the official logo of the organization.To change the official logo from a green turtle to a blue turtle is analogous with changing the official name of the organization from "Green Turtle Group" to "Blue Turtle Group."If a logo has been adopted, any change to it is effected through the motion to ASPA.Much obliged, Tim! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest5 Posted July 28, 2012 at 05:41 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 05:41 PM The member feels that we should go back to the membership for another vote. We sent out a survey on two occasions asking if they agreed to change the name and subsequent logo change, or not. Approximately 1/3 of the members voted. The changed passed by a slim margin. The board met to discuss the results of the survey and vote on the change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 28, 2012 at 05:51 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 05:51 PM The member feels that we should go back to the membership for another vote. We sent out a survey on two occasions asking if they agreed to change the name and subsequent logo change, or not. Approximately 1/3 of the members voted. The changed passed by a slim margin. The board met to discuss the results of the survey and vote on the change.You're mixing the concepts of a survey and a vote. Surveys are not governed by parliamentary law and are not binding. It doesn't sound like the members responding to the survey decided the matter. Is it the board that has the authority to amend the logo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted July 28, 2012 at 05:52 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 05:52 PM The member feels that we should go back to the membership for another vote. We sent out a survey on two occasions asking if they agreed to change the name and subsequent logo change, or not. Is the Board the ultimate decision maker on this and the Membership was merely being polled informally to see what their views on the situation was? Or was this "survey" intended to be a formal vote from the Membership (and if so do the bylaws specifically provide for voting that way)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest5 Posted July 28, 2012 at 06:09 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 06:09 PM The board makes all decisions. The survey was because we felt it was important for members to have a say, as a name change is a very important decision.One aspect that is still being debated by the board, is that 13 members were present for the vote, the chair deemed 3 in conflict, as they sit on another board that would gain from the name change (in some respects), and the chair did not vote, so 9 voting members, with 5 as a majority. The vote passed however the Objector does not feel that a simple majority of Exec members, and a simple majority of those who actually responded to the survey is fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted July 28, 2012 at 06:13 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 06:13 PM The member feels that we should go back to the membership for another vote. We sent out a survey on two occasions asking if they agreed to change the name and subsequent logo change, or not. Approximately 1/3 of the members voted. The changed passed by a slim margin. The board met to discuss the results of the survey and vote on the change.If you're changing the name of the organization (and perhaps even if you're only changing the logo), this might well require amending the bylaws so the first thing to determine is whether your board has the authority to amend the bylaws (it's certainly possible though not typical). If the board does have that authority (and your latest post suggests that it might), then the most this member can do is vote "no" on the proposed change. I'd also question whether a (simple) majority vote (of any body) is enough to amend your bylaws. So you need to be very sure about your bylaws' amendment process. Specifically, who can do it and how is it done (e.g. a two-thirds vote is common). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 28, 2012 at 06:23 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 06:23 PM The board makes all decisions. The survey was because we felt it was important for members to have a say, as a name change is a very important decision.One aspect that is still being debated by the board, is that 13 members were present for the vote, the chair deemed 3 in conflict, as they sit on another board that would gain from the name change (in some respects),If they were denied the right to vote, you could have a problem. If they voluntarily abstained, see below. The vote passed however the Objector does not feel that a simple majority of Exec members, and a simple majority of those who actually responded to the survey is fair.He's right. The motion to amend the previously adopted motion requires a two-thirds vote; notice and a majority vote; or a majority of the ENTIRE membership.Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, for the general case of amending something previously adopted, the answer would be the following: The vote passed. It's over. Move on. However, this sounds like it may be an amendment of the bylaws, which must follow the process for amending the bylaws. That changes things a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest5 Posted July 28, 2012 at 06:45 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 06:45 PM There is nothing in our bylaws that states the Organizations name, logo. It does however state it in the Constitution. The Constitution can only be amended at the AGM, we have no semi annual. The Constiution states that we must bear the Association Logo (we actually have two), and or one of two NHL team logos. We were first instructed that we should indeed change our logo, because we don't have the proper licence to use an NHL logo. Now we have conflicting opinions on whether using it or not is valid. The reason for the name change is because funds have been donated to purchase all new jerseys for the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted July 28, 2012 at 07:09 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 at 07:09 PM There is nothing in our bylaws that states the Organizations name, logo. It does however state it in the Constitution. The Constitution can only be amended at the AGM, we have no semi annual.Case closed. Tell the board to stick to its knitting.By the way, when we use the term "bylaws" on this forum, we're referring to the primary governing documents of an organization (including, in other words, a constitution if there is one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.