Constitution

[Guest Snow White]

We passed a new constitution of our private org in August. As we are on a military facility, the constitution must be processed by the Private Org Office, and Legal.

Once it is approved, then we can use it. In September, the Private Org Office went under an inspection. The inspection determined that the constitutions were not being

processed properly. As a result, the constitution of our club was thrown out, and we had to go back to the previous constitution.

Our constitution states that to pass an amendment, the amendment must be voted on and passed by the board of governors, then be posted for 30 days before it is presented to

the general membership for a vote. Our club is confused with what to do now. We want to submit the new version of our constitution, the one that was handed back, to

the Private Org Office, but we do not know how to do this. Since it was already passed by the board of governors and the general membership in August, do we have to go

through this same procedure of voting with the board of governors, posting for 30 days and then voted on by general membership, or can we just re-submit it, since we haven't made any changes to it?

[Chris Harrison]

I think the answer hinges on why the Constitutions were thrown out. If you all did something improperly then you may have to go through the process again but if it was the Private Org Office that did something improperly then you might be able to simply re-submit the Constitution (or the Office might have been instructed to process them correctly this time and you all don't need to do anything). I would suggest you all ask the Private Org Office and/or body which did the inspection how you should proceed.

[David A Foulkes]

The inspection determined that the constitutions were not being processed properly.

I think the key is right here. In what way were the constitutions not being processed properly? You don't say there was a problem with the constitution itself, but in the "processing." Find out what was improper, do it properly next time, and hope that's all it will take. At best, you'll be on your way. At worst, you'll find out what also needs to be "fixed" that they didn't bother to tell you about.

[Guest Guest]

The constitutions were not processed properly by the Private Org Office. It was their bad. There was no problem with our constitution itself. The Private Org Office was cited as a result of their inspection, and was required to send back all 70 of the private org constitutions. (There are 70 private orgs on this base). Now it is time to re-submit. So, does Robert's Rules say that we need to follow the procedure outlined in our constitution? (I personally feel the new constitution submitted is crap, and would love the opportunity to tear it apart, but we had our constitutional review in August at the suggestion of the new president. (She is allowed this liberty in our constitution, the one she so wanted to replace.) There is talk that this August constitutional review was not done per the rules of our constitution, and there are no minutes that this meeting even took place. Can I do a point of order to throw out the whole new, questionable constitution?

[sMargaret]

I find this one confusing, from a parliamentary position. Should we assume the Private Org Office has the force of law, or a corporate charter, in precedence?

I would suggest you take it back to the membership - Motion: resubmit as is, and see what happens.

I will further note that apparently the August constitutional review was not done as per the rules, but was the new constitution approved as per your rules? Was a point of order raised at the time the review was done?

[Guest Guest]

The Private Org Office sets the guidelines for all private orgs on this military instillation and makes sure your group meets all the requirements, as dictated by the U S Air Force, before

granting your group permission to exist on this base.

Unfortunately, the constitutional review was not done as per the rules of our constitution, but it was approved since membership had no clue. No, a point of order was not raised at the time the

review was done, or directly after the constitution was adopted. We now have new members who are questioning the integrity of our board as well as this constitution we are discussing on this

forum.

[sMargaret]

Unfortunately, the constitutional review was not done as per the rules of our constitution, but it was approved since membership had no clue.

Was the review not being done as per the rules of the constitution something that would be in the nature of a continuing breach of order? Was it a violation of a rule that embodies a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, or a violation of basic rights of members?

If not, then if there was no point of order raised at the time, this may fall under the "you snooze, you lose" rule.

[Josh Martin]

The constitutions were not processed properly by the Private Org Office. It was their bad. There was no problem with our constitution itself. The Private Org Office was cited as a result of their inspection, and was required to send back all 70 of the private org constitutions. (There are 70 private orgs on this base). Now it is time to re-submit. So, does Robert's Rules say that we need to follow the procedure outlined in our constitution?

This has to do with the customized rules of the Private Org Office and your organization. So RONR doesn't provide an answer to this question. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

I am rather skeptical of the idea that an error in how the constitution was processed by an outside group would require the organization to redo the amendment process, but anything's possible.

There is talk that this August constitutional review was not done per the rules of our constitution, and there are no minutes that this meeting even took place. Can I do a point of order to throw out the whole new, questionable constitution?

Maybe. We'd need more information on what rules were violated to determine if a Point of Order could be raised at this point.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Some thoughts.

1. I assume that the Guest_Guest of Posts #6 and 4 are indeed Snow White. If not, please correct this mistake.

1 (a). I suggest you, Snow White or Snow-White-and-_Guest-friends, sign up for the website the next time you post. It'll make it always easier to post after that. And you don't risk inadvertently posting anonymously as "Guest_Guest", which makes us guess_guess who you are. There's no downside.

2. Snow White, according to the beginning of your first post here, your organization adopted the amendments properly, following the procedures included in the constitution as it was then, and according to the rules of the airbase that you have to comply with.

It was their bad. There was no problem with our constitution itself. [post 4]

If I got this wrong, please let me know. Now afterwards, the Private Org Office had to do something administrative about your constitution-as-newly-amended, and the POO (?!) did not do that properly. If that is so, then I don't see how or why you would need to change anything or do anything over. Do you see anything that would suggest it?

The Private Org Office was cited as a result of their inspection, and was required to send back all 70 of the private org constitutions. (There are 70 private orgs on this base). Now it is time to re-submit. So, does Robert's Rules say that we need to follow the procedure outlined in our constitution?

No, Robert's Rules does not say that you have to re-adopt amendments that you already adopted properly, just because some other office did not do its job right.

Unless I'm badly mistaken, all you have to do -- and all you can do -- is let the POO ( *&$#@! ) do their job right this time. How could you possibly improve the way that the POO does its job by having your organization pointlessly retrace its steps?

2 (a). How about all the other organizations whose constitutions weren't properly handled by the POO (??!?)? Do they think that they have to re-draft and re-submit their constitutions?

3. You say:

We want to submit the new version of our constitution, the one that was handed back, to

the Private Org Office, but we do not know how to do this.

If that's the issue, then just submit it!

4. Again -- Snow White, this is what you said, yes?:

We want to submit the new version of our constitution, the one that was handed back ...

-- but later,

(I personally feel the new constitution submitted is crap, and would love the opportunity to tear it apart,...

So we can take this, this discrepancy, as an aside, which is not germane and if pursued here, will muddy the waters -- yes? And if you want to go into it, you can easily post a new topic/discussion thread (with your new convenient Snow White log-in), yes?

5. Snow White:

but we had our constitutional review in August at the suggestion of the new president. (She is allowed this liberty in our constitution, the one she so wanted to replace.) There is talk that this August constitutional review was not done per the rules of our constitution,...

I don't follow -- what's objectionable about making a suggestion?

Unfortunately, the constitutional review was not done as per the rules of our constitution, but it was approved since membership had no clue ...

Snow White, is the constitutional review required for adopting amendments to the constitution, or for something else? Until you brought up the constitutional review it seemed that at at least your organization was fully compliant with the rules for adopting amendments. Wasn't it?

and

6.

and there are no minutes that this meeting even took place.

Again, if this is now an issue, please start another thread about it. Is there serious doubt that such a meeting took place? If not, then have someone (possibly someone other than the person who was supposed to produce a draft of the minutes for approval, but didn't) draw up a draft of what was done at the meeting, have it corrected (if necessary) and approved, and have done with it.

Have a nice weekend, Snow White. ... although that customarily implies we won't see you till Monday or Tuesday, and I'm hoping you'll get back to us on this sooner.

... Oh, and of course have a nice weekend to everybody else too, and as far as I'm concerned you can all go soak in the Chesapeake or go pollacking in Lake Wisconsin with RTW or something for a few days.

CT 1

[Guest Nancy N.]

(Watch a few hours TV and nap a little in the middle of writing a ickle post and look, some parvenu goes and steals some of my points.)

CT 4

[Tim Wynn]

As we are on a military facility, the constitution must be processed by the Private Org Office, and Legal.

This is why no one on this forum can provide a clear answer. This is beyond the reach of Robert's Rules.

And we don't know the rules that govern your organization.

[Guest Snow White]

I signed up for this website last year, then one day, this sight refused to let me sign in stating there was an error. I just gave up and now sign on as a guest.

I believe this problem is beyond Robert's Rules.

In case you're wondering, I went skiing over the holiday, that's why I'm not replying until today. Thank you all for your advise.