Requirement to submit motions 15 days in advance of meeting HELP

[Guest SEDMAI]

I serve on a BOD which includes several persons who exhibit megalomaniac tendencies, and bullying habits.

These persons are pushing hard to pass a special rule of order whereby any motion brought before the BOD must be submitted fifteen days in advance. Their rationale is that this policy will reduce the chances of "hasty, ill-advised, decisions." Yikes. Motions brought after that deadline require the maker to answer a laundry list of questions (why the deadline wasn't met, why the motion wasn't first presented to a committee, why the motion can't wait til the next quarterly meeting) which could dissuade even the most committed thinker trying to accomplish a good miracle. After jumping through all of those crazy hoops, a 2/3 vote of the BOD would be required for BOD to suspend the special rule of order and allow the maker to inconvenience the BOD with their pesky motion.

I trust that the checks-and-balances within RONR offer adequate protection from "hasty, ill-advised, decisions" and other such parliamentary calamity. I fear that this 15 day gambit is intended to quash independent thinking, impede minority BOD members from getting anything done, and promote an atmosphere where bullies rule the BOD and run roughshod over any persons to dare to venture outside the secret script.

PLEASE HELP me to argue against this bad motion in such a way that our meek majority will wake up and smell the coffee, see the risks attached to such a special rule of order, and have the courage to vote against the bullies.

If anyone can help me with RONR citations, wise quotes, war stories, cautionary tales, or other such persuasive arguments against this terrible idea, I would be most appreciative.

Thank you for your consideration.

[David A Foulkes]

These persons are pushing hard to pass a special rule of order whereby any motion brought before the BOD must be submitted fifteen days in advance. Their rationale is that this policy will reduce the chances of "hasty, ill-advised, decisions."

Just because a motion is made at a meeting is no reason why a "hasty, ill-advised decision" must be made then and there. Even after substantial debate takes place, hopefully providing the members an opportunity to express their favor or disfavor of the motion, along with some relevant information, the motion can always be Postponed (Section 14) to a later time or meeting, Referred (Section 13) to a committee for further investigation and consideration, or even voted down, after which it can be Renewed (moved again - Section 38) at a subsequent meeting after members have had a chance on their own to research and consider the content.

Whether this new rule is advisable, there are other parliamentary methods to employ to avoid making "hasty, ill-advised decisions" without introducing restrictive rules that may have unexpected adverse effects on the conducting of business that will themselves need to be dealt with in some other fashion. It sounds a bit like this new rule itself might qualify as a "hasty, ill-advised decision." But that will be up to the members to determine.

Section references for RONR (11th Edition)

[Dan Honemann]

"The executive board of an organized society operates under the society's bylaws, the society's parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules of the society which may be applicable to it. Such a board may adopt its own special rules of order or standing rules only to the extent that such rules do not conflict with any of the rules of the society listed above." RONR, 11th ed., p. 486, ll. 13-19.