Guest Penelope Posted November 12, 2012 at 05:48 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 05:48 PM At the last meeting our committee had, a bylaw amendment was voted on and passed and the meeting was adjourned. A few days later, the committee received an e-mail from the Chair saying that it hadn't passed with a 2/3rd majority as is required. The secretaries notes were incomplete. She only recorded the "ayes." The Chair said that none of them (the panel) realized that the vote needed a 2/3rd majority and if they had, the motion would have never passed.Can the chair simply nullify something that had already been agreed upon as being passed, when there is no proof sufficient to say that it hadn't? I can't locate any protocol for that action in my Robert's Rules.It may also be pertinent to note that the motion passed removed the Chair's ability to appoint the Chairs of the subcommittees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted November 12, 2012 at 05:51 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 05:51 PM See Official Interpretation 2006-18. Also nothing in RONR would give the Chair the authority to declare something null and void between meetings even if he were correct in his ruling (which he isn't in this case). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted November 12, 2012 at 05:56 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 05:56 PM Thank you, Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted November 12, 2012 at 06:10 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 06:10 PM I read through the information you provided. I seems as though the ruling would stand and someone would have to call for a vote to change the bylaws back to what it was originally, which would need a 2/3rd vote to pass. Correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted November 12, 2012 at 07:21 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 07:21 PM I read through the information you provided. I seems as though the ruling would stand and someone would have to call for a vote to change the bylaws back to what it was originally, which would need a 2/3rd vote to pass. Correct?Correct, if that's what your bylaws say is the procedure for amending them. (Typically, they should require previous notice before a 2/3 vote.)Also ... is this a committee, in the standard sense of a subordinate body, which usually would not have bylaws of its own; or is it actually an autonomous body?1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted November 12, 2012 at 10:43 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 10:43 PM We have bylaws, but nothing in them applies to this.Is there an online version of the 10th edition that anyone is aware of? I have the 11th, but the source cited in the above example is from the 10th, which I don't have access to. I need to be able to find the same information in the 11th to use for the argument, or it won't hold water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted November 12, 2012 at 10:52 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 10:52 PM We have bylaws, but nothing in them applies to this.Is there an online version of the 10th edition that anyone is aware of? I have the 11th, but the source cited in the above example is from the 10th, which I don't have access to. I need to be able to find the same information in the 11th to use for the argument, or it won't hold water.In the eleventh edition, use p. 306, ll. 13-18, & p. 251, & p. 261, ll. 15-17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted November 12, 2012 at 10:59 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 10:59 PM Great! Thank you so much, Tim! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:07 AM Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:07 AM Great! Thank you so much, Tim!You're welcome, Penelope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted November 13, 2012 at 08:33 PM Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 at 08:33 PM One last clarification:p. 251 ll. 9-10 refers to a motion being passed that contradicts current bylaws and does not refer to the motion having been passed in error, correct? So the Chair nullifying a vote a week later, that perhaps did not pass with the 2/3rds required, is still beyond the scope of authority afforded to the Chair by Robert's Rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted November 13, 2012 at 09:00 PM Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 at 09:00 PM So the Chair nullifying a vote a week later, that perhaps did not pass with the 2/3rds required, is still beyond the scope of authority afforded to the Chair by Robert's Rules?Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.