Council not following Roberts Rules

[Guest Doug]

Our 10 person council has in our bylaws that we shall follow Roberts rules. We had a council meeting in which 3 motions passed. When the person that these motions affected complained, the President started an email discussion and decided she had 5 persons change their mind and rescinded the motions. My belief is that she needs to call a meeting with 7 days notice and needs 3/4 vote to pass (to recind) The action in the previous motions had been carried out. What can be done to stop this type of activity. Censure although im not sure what that really does. Any help would be appreciated.

[tctheatc]

You're partially right. What happens outside a properly called meeting (the e-mails you describe, unless provided for in your bylaws which could then change things somewhat) is generally of no concern. The passed motions should stand.

If it's desired to rescind or amend the passed motions, yes, it should be done at a meeting. I assume your 7 day notice is your group's requirement, no?

But the 3/4 vote to rescind or amend is not correct. Such action would require a majority vote with proper previous notice, or a 2/3 vote, or a majority vote of the entire membership (the 10 if it's your council we're talking about.)

The way to stop it would be a point of order at a meeting. If no meeting is called, you could direct the offenders' attention to section 35, starting on p305.

But if the actions have been "carried out" as you note, it may be too late to rescind or amend.

[Guest Doug]

Thank you for your response. This apparently is how our Board is acting. A member (not on the Board) bitches about a passed motion then it becomes an email vote for the Board.I have mentioned rule 35 however to no avail. We do not have voting by electronic means in our bylaws therefore I beleive a meeting is required. What can a Board (or I) do to stop this procedure. I mention censoring the Pres however that is a slap on the wrist or is it more formal than that hat can be done with Boards in general who do not follow the rules (Roberts) I have looked at this site in its entirety and have not found an answer. Thank You again.

[Rev Ed]

A censure is essentially a slap on the wrist - basically a "Don't do this again or else." An honest person would take it seriously, but others may not. A censure does not require formal disciplinary procedures (footnote on page 643 of RONR.) And the President should step aside while the issue of censuring him is being dealt with (page 451 lines 29-35 of RONR.)

[Guest Nancy N.]

A censure is essentially a slap on the wrist - basically a "Don't do this again or else." An honest person would take it seriously, but others may not. A censure does not require formal disciplinary procedures (footnote on page 643 of RONR.) And the President should step aside while the issue of censuring him is being dealt with (page 451 lines 29-35 of RONR.)

This is rather well said, except for the lamentably wrong, because of its intrinsically (ironically, maybe) limp-wristedness, first sentence.

5 (for Ghod's sake, I could even see only four of them; next, navy blue on black? c'mon! Bots will do better than humans!)

[Guest Larry Cisar]

If the membership will not follow the rules even though they know what the rules are, there is not much you can do except get as far away as you possibly can from the organization.

[sMargaret]

If the membership will not follow the rules even though they know what the rules are, there is not much you can do except get as far away as you possibly can from the organization.

There's also (1) an impassioned speech in the meeting about how parliamentary process is what keeps us from devolving into chaos (put in the form of a motion, of course), (2) bringing a lawyer to the meeting, (3) having a friendly conversation with the chair outside the meeting about liability issues adn the dangers of conducting business in such a fashion, and (4) learning how to use "Point of order", and "Appeal the decision of the chair"

I have found the Guerilla Guide to Robert's Rules of Order, by Nancy Sylvester, to be very helpful in situations such as this - I only hope it will be revised for the 11th edition. Her website has a two part series on Process for disagreement with the chair, complete with a script.

[Rev Ed]

This is rather well said, except for the lamentably wrong, because of its intrinsically (ironically, maybe) limp-wristedness, first sentence.

Sorry Nancy, but a censure is only a slap on the wrist - most people will learn from it, but not everyone will.

[Trina]

Our 10 person council has in our bylaws that we shall follow Roberts rules. We had a council meeting in which 3 motions passed. When the person that these motions affected complained, the President started an email discussion and decided she had 5 persons change their mind and rescinded the motions. My belief is that she needs to call a meeting with 7 days notice and needs 3/4 vote to pass (to recind) The action in the previous motions had been carried out. What can be done to stop this type of activity. Censure although im not sure what that really does. Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you for your response. This apparently is how our Board is acting. A member (not on the Board) bitches about a passed motion then it becomes an email vote for the Board.I have mentioned rule 35 however to no avail. We do not have voting by electronic means in our bylaws therefore I beleive a meeting is required. What can a Board (or I) do to stop this procedure. I mention censoring the Pres however that is a slap on the wrist or is it more formal than that hat can be done with Boards in general who do not follow the rules (Roberts) I have looked at this site in its entirety and have not found an answer. Thank You again.

This is a question of numbers. It sounds as though the President is not alone in her misunderstanding and/or disregard of the rules. On the other hand, if close to half the board members don't agree with the President's nonsense, there is perhaps hope -- with some education about the rules you might get a majority of the board members to correct the errors that have been made (i.e. noting that the e-mail vote and the attempt to rescind are null and void). Another approach is for the general membership to call the board to task (if the majority of the membership shares the President's ignorance of the rules, this won't happen, of course).

Have you read section 35? Always good to inform yourself before trying to persuade others...

One thing that may help is to get a copy (or several copies) of RONR In Brief, which is a very readable summary of many of the rules in the 'Big Book' -- that should help with educating and persuading a few people to vote the right way if and when this matter comes before the assembly.

In the end, majority rules.