general meeting established order of business and special presentation

[Guest David Christensen]

RONR General Discussion:

Your capta is extremely annoying. I've failed at least 10 times in a row. You need to find a better technology for controlling who posts.

I am a member of a local unit of an international organization. Our local unit has monthly general meetings that follow an established order of business, as printed in our constitution and also printed in our local unit bylaws. A typical general meeting takes from two to three hours. Our constitution specifies RONR as our parliamentary authority.

Prior to last month's meeting, the local organization provided notice to the members of a special presentation to be held at the next general meeting.

At the meeting, the local unit president called the meeting to order and then diverged from the established order of business shortly thereafter by proceeding with the special presentation. At no time was there a motion, second, debate, or vote to modify the established order of business.

This special presentation consumed nearly an hour and forty-five minutes before it was stopped by a parliamentary inquiry by myself regarding the order of business.

As I understand it:

1. RONR (11 ed.), p. 26, ll. 20-23 requires that the chair follow the established order of business when the organization specifies such.

2. RONR (11 ed.), p. 372, ll. 18-22 requires a vote to modify an established order of business.

Did the chair violate RONR?

Per our constitution, I filed written charges with the international organization district vice president against the chair for violating the above provisions of RONR. The international vice president investigated and ruled as follows:

"All interested parties were notified on three occasions of the special order of business that was to be taken up at the November general membership meeting, which was duly opened and called to order by <the local unit president>."

"I have concluded that the charges you have filed against <the local unit president> are without merit and therefore dismissed. This case is considered closed."

Is the above decision in conformance with RONR?

If not, what is my next step?

Please let me know if you need additional information.

TIA,

David

[Sean Hunt]

Did the chair violate RONR?

Yes, technically what happened was in violation of the rules of order, as nothing can happen at a meeting without a motion pending, unless another motion is adopted to have such a presentation. However, I would not consider it a serious matter. In the future, you could bring a Point of Order and possibly an Appeal, and then if people wanted to hear the presentation, they could do so.

It would also probably be a good idea to bring this matter up at the meeting prior, where this was announced, since otherwise the guest presenter probably would not feel very appreciated.

[Guest Edgar]

Your capta is extremely annoying. I've failed at least 10 times in a row. You need to find a better technology for controlling who posts.

Don't hold your breath.

[George Mervosh]

Maybe your chair read the sample minutes in RONR (RONR, pp. 472-473) which show a nice, tidy and proper way to squeeze in a guest speaker in the middle of a meeting, but since nothing might have been pending he didn't worry too much about formalities.

Filed charges, eh? Ok.

[Josh Martin]

Your capta is extremely annoying. I've failed at least 10 times in a row. You need to find a better technology for controlling who posts.

You will find much sympathy for this position among many members of the forum, however, I do not anticipate that the powers that be will be changing it any time soon. In the meantime, I would recommend registering an account if you intend to continue to post on the forum. You'll need to get through one last Captcha gauntlet to register, but then you're in the clear from then on.

Did the chair violate RONR?

It would seem so. The chair should have asked for unanimous consent to deviate from the order of business and hear the guest speaker, and if someone objected, a formal vote would then be required.

"All interested parties were notified on three occasions of the special order of business that was to be taken up at the November general membership meeting, which was duly opened and called to order by <the local unit president>."

"I have concluded that the charges you have filed against <the local unit president> are without merit and therefore dismissed. This case is considered closed."

Is the above decision in conformance with RONR?

I'm not sure. If there was a vote at some prior meeting establishing the guest speaker as a special order of business, then the chair did nothing wrong. Otherwise, the fact that the members were incorrectly informed three times that it was a special order of business is of no consequence, and the chair still violated RONR.

In any event, however, it's up to the society and its own disciplinary procedures to determine how strictly to punish a given violation of the rules (if at all), so RONR makes no comment either way on whether it is correct that "the charges you have filed against <the local unit president> are without merit and therefore dismissed."

If not, what is my next step?

I have no idea. It seems your society has its own customized disciplinary procedures, so follow those.

Or you could just let it go and raise questions more promptly next time.

However, I would not consider it a serious matter. In the future, you could bring a Point of Order and possibly an Appeal, and then if people wanted to hear the presentation, they could do so.

I believe the appropriate motion here would be a Call for the Orders of the Day.

[dpchrist]

Yes, technically what happened was in violation of the rules of order, as nothing can happen at a meeting without a motion pending, unless another motion is adopted to have such a presentation. However, I would not consider it a serious matter. In the future, you could bring a Point of Order and possibly an Appeal, and then if people wanted to hear the presentation, they could do so.

The local unit officers have a history of violating RONR. At a prior special call meeting when the announced agenda was complete, the president proceded with an unannounced item of business. I made a point of order than only announced items could be handled at a special call meeting. The president ruled that my point was not well taken and that I could appeal to the international vice president for our district, thereby violating my right to appeal from the decision of the chair to the body of members present.

It would also probably be a good idea to bring this matter up at the meeting prior, where this was announced, since otherwise the guest presenter probably would not feel very appreciated.

The special presentation wasn't announced until a few days prior to the general meeting.

David

[dpchrist]

Don't hold your breath.

I won't; but I want the forum operators to know that their captchas are a problem.

[dpchrist]

Maybe your chair read the sample minutes in RONR (RONR, pp. 472-473) which show a nice, tidy and proper way to squeeze in a guest speaker in the middle of a meeting, but since nothing might have been pending he didn't worry too much about formalities.

Filed charges, eh? Ok.

See my reply #6, above.

[dpchrist]

You will find much sympathy for this position among many members of the forum, however, I do not anticipate that the powers that be will be changing it any time soon. In the meantime, I would recommend registering an account if you intend to continue to post on the forum. You'll need to get through one last Captcha gauntlet to register, but then you're in the clear from then on.

I looked for registration prior to my first post, but didn't find it. This time, I looked harder. :-)

It would seem so. The chair should have asked for unanimous consent to deviate from the order of business and hear the guest speaker, and if someone objected, a formal vote would then be required.

I suspect that both the local unit president and the internation vice president are confusing the rules for a special call meeting and the rules for modifying the established order of business at general meetings. The international representative who investigated my charges made a very revealing remark -- RONR are merely guidelines; local officers are free to modify the agenda as they see fit. I challenged him on this point, and he reiterated it. This did not bode well.

I'm not sure. If there was a vote at some prior meeting establishing the guest speaker as a special order of business, then the chair did nothing wrong.

See my reply #6, above.

Otherwise, the fact that the members were incorrectly informed three times that it was a special order of business is of no consequence, and the chair still violated RONR.

That is my understanding.

In any event, however, it's up to the society and its own disciplinary procedures to determine how strictly to punish a given violation of the rules (if at all), so RONR makes no comment either way on whether it is correct that "the charges you have filed against <the local unit president> are without merit and therefore dismissed."

I have no idea. It seems your society has its own customized disciplinary procedures, so follow those.

Or you could just let it go and raise questions more promptly next time.

Our constitution and/or local unit bylaws cover discipline, and I try to follow them. I believe the accused has a right of appeal if found guilty; I don't believe the accuser has any right of appeal. I need to study our rules again.

I believe the appropriate motion here would be a Call for the Orders of the Day.

Agreed.

[J. J.]

The time to object to the procedure was when the chair first diverged from it. I see no grounds for disciplinary action.

[Sean Hunt]

I suspect that both the local unit president and the internation vice president are confusing the rules for a special call meeting and the rules for modifying the established order of business at general meetings. The international representative who investigated my charges made a very revealing remark -- RONR are merely guidelines; local officers are free to modify the agenda as they see fit. I challenged him on this point, and he reiterated it. This did not bode well.

What does your local unit rules say? If the bylaws or other documents clearly specify that RONR is to be used, then they are not merely guidelines. If your rules do prescribe RONR, then they are indeed rules and your officers should not consider themselves free to violate them, nor should your larger body.

The time to object to the procedure was when the chair first diverged from it. I see no grounds for disciplinary action.

The local unit officers have a history of violating RONR. At a prior special call meeting when the announced agenda was complete, the president proceded with an unannounced item of business. I made a point of order than only announced items could be handled at a special call meeting. The president ruled that my point was not well taken and that I could appeal to the international vice president for our district, thereby violating my right to appeal from the decision of the chair to the body of members present.

If your rules prescribe RONR, then you do indeed have the right to appeal, and you should assert that right. If the chair three times refuses to hear a motion to Appeal, any member can stand and immediately put the question to a vote without debate. You may also find it useful to Suspend the Rules and appoint a chair pro tem to preside in such a scenario.

[Guest Nancy N.]

The local unit officers have a history of violating RONR. At a prior special call meeting when the announced agenda was complete, the president proceded with an unannounced item of business. I made a point of order than only announced items could be handled at a special call meeting. The president ruled that my point was not well taken and that I could appeal to the international vice president for our district, thereby violating my right to appeal from the decision of the chair to the body of members present.

David (I trust that I may call you David, in anticipation of a long and pleasant association to come), this is a very interesting issue in itself. I bet it raises the hackles of some regular posters -- I see the voracious Sean Hunt has bitten already -- but it's tangential, and if you want to discuss this previous incident further, which I myself would welcome, please post it as a separate new thread. I will say that you're using the term "appeal" to mean two distinct different things, without differentiating them. It looks to me as if Mr. Hunt actually didn't catch it. (Pace, Sean! :-) ... uh oh, I bet that's not a smiley face, it just looks like a French nostril.)

c.t. #5

[Sean Hunt]

David (I trust that I may call you David, in anticipation of a long and pleasant association to come), this is a very interesting issue in itself. I bet it raises the hackles of some regular posters -- I see the voracious Sean Hunt has bitten already -- but it's tangential, and if you want to discuss this previous incident further, which I myself would welcome, please post it as a separate new thread. I will say that you're using the term "appeal" to mean two distinct different things, without differentiating them. It looks to me as if Mr. Hunt actually didn't catch it. (Pace, Sean! :-) ... uh oh, I bet that's not a smiley face, it just looks like a French nostril.)

c.t. #5

My interpretation was that the chair did not allow an appeal to the assembly. If he would allow such an appeal, then I retract my comments about them in the previous post.

[Josh Martin]

The local unit officers have a history of violating RONR. At a prior special call meeting when the announced agenda was complete, the president proceded with an unannounced item of business. I made a point of order than only announced items could be handled at a special call meeting. The president ruled that my point was not well taken and that I could appeal to the international vice president for our district, thereby violating my right to appeal from the decision of the chair to the body of members present.

This is much more concerning than the present issue, in my opinion.

local officers are free to modify the agenda as they see fit.

This is not correct, unless your rules so provide. The assembly may modify the agenda, but the chair may not do so unilaterally (although he may ask for unanimous consent to do so).

The time to object to the procedure was when the chair first diverged from it. I see no grounds for disciplinary action.

J. J., while I personally agree, isn't that decision ultimately up to the organization? (Although, granted, the organization seems to have come to the same conclusion so far.)

[Guest Nancy N.]

Nancy N., on 11 December 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

David (I trust that I may call you David...) ... I will say that you're using the term 'appeal' to mean two distinct different things, without differentiating them. It looks to me as if Mr. Hunt actually didn't catch it. (Pace, Sean! :

My interpretation was that the chair did not allow an appeal to the assembly. If he would allow such an appeal, then I retract my comments about them in the previous post.

I'm going to retract first (I'm up earlier ... oh, and also because I should and Sean shouldn't). I had perceived that earlier situation (more alarming, as Josh Martin says, than the present kerfuffle, though characteristically Josh puts it more calmly -- pace, Josh, and calm down, G-- er, Nance) as if it were one where the organization's standard, and reasonable, protocol for disputes was to appeal upstairs, as the president advised David to do. That's what I -- mistakenly -- took to be one of the meanings of "appeal" that OP David (now dpChrist, thank G-d) was using, the other being RONR's appeal-of-a-ruling process. Absent some overriding rule of the organization, which absence now seems likely, the presiding officer was just plain wrong in referring David to the the international VP instead of acknowledging David's right to appeal to the assembly.

What derailed me was David's apparent acceptance of the president's statement about going to the international VP, which I took to be standard form. When David said that this violated his right, I read it as his being stuck with a mandated protocol, rather than being able to use his right to raise a point of order about that infraction too, on the spot, though doing so would surely have confused most everybody else, including me if I'd been there. (Probably not Sean. pace, Sean. Ooo, I'm such a suckup.) Of course, I admit that if it had been me, I would have probably sat there fuming in frustrated discomfiture, not having the presence of mind to appeal that delusional ruling of the chair, or just hitting him with my crocodile (old habits of the witenagemot die hard). (Knowledgeable readers: cf. Robert's Parliamentary law re. throwing a brick at the chairman. Crocodiles were before his time.)

capcha trial 5. my g-d, how much could it cost.

6. Now I'm taking a clonazepam. Calm Down, whatever your name is.

7. This is the way we invite new people to ask questions here?