Guest VSM Posted November 24, 2012 at 04:52 AM Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 at 04:52 AM If a board member discusses items that are not on the agenda with some but not all members and based on their agreement to vote for the items, then has the issues placed on the agenda, what can the chairman do to prevent the item from being discussed at the regular board meeting? This member has been pushing his personal agenda on the board since being elected because he feels the board has not been doing things correctly. It is starting to disturb the membership of the organization and the chair wants to stop the disruptive activity. Is a legal opinion required so that the item can be immediately tabled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted November 24, 2012 at 05:52 AM Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 at 05:52 AM If a motion is brought before the assembly (and it sounds as though the motions made by this member will at least be seconded by one of his friends), the assembly (not the chair acting unilaterally) decides how to dispose of the motion. The item could be postponed (not tabled) by majority vote. A motion to postpone is debatable. The motion for the previous question could be made -- immediately ending debate if adopted, and then bringing the pending question to a vote. Previous question is not debatable, and requires a two-thirds vote.The chair, acting alone, has no authority to stop members from bringing business before the assembly (certainly not on the grounds that the business represents the member's 'personal agenda' or on the grounds that someone finds the business 'disruptive').Take a look at FAQ #14 regarding the agenda (an agenda is much less important than many people assume). Also, for further details on the motion for the previous question, see FAQ #11. Here's another FAQ worth reading (regarding tabling, which is very commonly misunderstood and misused). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted November 24, 2012 at 01:01 PM Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 at 01:01 PM This member has been pushing his personal agenda on the board since being elected because he feels the board has not been doing things correctly. Sounds to me like he's acting as a responsible representative of the members who elected him. That's democracy for ya. Maybe the only thing that's "personal" about his agenda is that he's the only one who cares that the board hasn't been doing things correctly. Which is just to say there's more than one way to look at this situation.In any event, he was elected so he's as much a board member as any other board member. With all the same rights. No more, but no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 24, 2012 at 03:58 PM Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 at 03:58 PM If he were surreptitiously trying to keep legitimate items of business from coming before the assembly, you might have a valid complaint. But if he's bringing matters up for discussion, after which they get discussed, and ultimately properly voted on, I'm not sure what you think is improper about it. You have all the means at your disposal to debate and make a cogent argument against them, to move that they be referred to a committee, or that they be postponed, or perfected by amendment, or any of the other means available to you, or anyone, in a democratically organized assembly.If you lose after all that, you lost fair and square. Democracy doesn't mean you always get your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted November 24, 2012 at 04:32 PM Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 at 04:32 PM If a board member discusses items that are not on the agenda with some but not all members and based on their agreement to vote for the items, then has the issues placed on the agenda, what can the chairman do to prevent the item from being discussed at the regular board meeting?Provided the motion is otherwise in order, nothing. Should it be attempted to be blocked by the chair on improper grounds, it might open the chair up to disciplinary action.One possibility might the motion Objection to the Consideration of the Question (OTC). If in order, it would require a 2/3 vote against consideration. As noted previously, the motion might be postponed. It also might be properly referred to a committee.This member has been pushing his personal agenda on the board since being elected because he feels the board has not been doing things correctly. It is starting to disturb the membership of the organization and the chair wants to stop the disruptive activity. Is a legal opinion required so that the item can be immediately tabled?None of these would be a legitimate ground for ruling the motion out of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 24, 2012 at 04:37 PM Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 at 04:37 PM If a board member discusses items that are not on the agenda with some but not all members and based on their agreement to vote for the items, then has the issues placed on the agenda, what can the chairman do to prevent the item from being discussed at the regular board meeting? This member has been pushing his personal agenda on the board since being elected because he feels the board has not been doing things correctly. It is starting to disturb the membership of the organization and the chair wants to stop the disruptive activity. Is a legal opinion required so that the item can be immediately tabled?The chairman can do nothing to prevent the item from being discussed. There's no need for a legal opinion, and the motion to Lay on the Table is used to set aside a motion so the assembly can take up some urgent business. It is not used to kill the motion, which seems to be the goal here. There are some methods to immediately defeat the motion or prevent it from being discussed altogether, and any of them will require a 2/3 vote. See FAQ #13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted November 24, 2012 at 05:23 PM Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 at 05:23 PM The only time I can think of when a member might not be allowed to make a motion is if it is being made at the wrong time. For example, if an Agenda is past dictating that the Minutes of the previous meeting will be dealt with before another issue (i.e. a new roof for the clubhouse), then it would not be appropriate to move a motion to repair the roof of the clubhouse when the issue of the Minutes come up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sMargaret Posted November 24, 2012 at 05:52 PM Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 at 05:52 PM The chair should not do anything to prevent an item from being discussed if members are in favour of discussing it. If a member wishes to bring an issue forward, they would need to make a motion, have it seconded (to ensure that at least one other person wishes to discuss it), and then discuss the issue.There are measures the chair can take to shorten the discussion (ie, don't let it ramble on and on), but the best way out is through - let the member bring the issue; if there are enough people in favour of discussing it, it gets discussed; if there are enough members in favour of passing the motion it gets passed.Also note that there is nothing to prevent a member from having discussions outside of meetings with fellow members. Proper parliamentary procedure is profoundly democratic. The chair is there to facilitate, not to control, and also to keep in mind the rights of a minority. It sounds that what you have there is not so much a member with opinions that are out to lunch, but someone who is working to build a majority opinion - which again, is perfectly proper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Britton Posted November 24, 2012 at 09:26 PM Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 at 09:26 PM Provided the motion is otherwise in order, nothing. Should it be attempted to be blocked by the chair on improper grounds, it might open the chair up to disciplinary action.One possibility might the motion Objection to the Consideration of the Question (OTC). If in order, it would require a 2/3 vote against consideration. As noted previously, the motion might be postponed. It also might be properly referred to a committee.None of these would be a legitimate ground for ruling the motion out of order.The other exception is if the motion is outside of the objectives of the society. A question dealing with business outside of the society's objectives would need a two-thirds vote in favor of hearing the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.