Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Presidential Role


Guest Sarah

Recommended Posts

Can a president make a ruling without the executive board voting on the manner?

A special executive session was called to discuss how a certain aspect of business is handled within our organization. The president came in with her opinion flatly stated and asked he the other board members felt then stated that she had made an executive decision and made a ruling without the consent or vote from the board. Is this proper? Either way can someone point me to the section of Roberts Rules that explains it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can a president make a ruling without the executive board voting on the manner?

 

Yes, but the President's ruling may be appealed from, which would bring the matter to a vote.

 

A special executive session was called to discuss how a certain aspect of business is handled within our organization. The president came in with her opinion flatly stated and asked he the other board members felt then stated that she had made an executive decision and made a ruling without the consent or vote from the board. Is this proper? Either way can someone point me to the section of Roberts Rules that explains it.

 

I'm not sure whether this was proper based on the facts provided, since "how a certain aspect of business is handled" is so vague. The chair may make a ruling on an interpretation of the organization's rules, although such a ruling is subject to appeal. If there is no rule on the subject, however, the President may not just declare what the organization will do. So a ruling is proper, but an "executive decision" is not, unless the bylaws give the President such authority.

 

See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 450, lines 14-17; pg. 456, lines 25-28.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no rule in our organization previously. It is in regards to how a recognition for member of the month is awarded. Specifically how and who can be nominated for the honor. The president wants to exclude the executive board from receiving in the honor even if they do something outside of thier board duties. Discussion occurred in the special session but a vote was never taken. She simply stated that she was making an executive decision to not allow board members from being nominated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no rule in our organization previously. It is in regards to how a recognition for member of the month is awarded. Specifically how and who can be nominated for the honor. The president wants to exclude the executive board from receiving in the honor even if they do something outside of thier board duties. Discussion occurred in the special session but a vote was never taken. She simply stated that she was making an executive decision to not allow board members from being nominated.

 

Thank you for the clarification. The President has no authority to make such a decision unless your rules grant her that authority. The term "executive decision" doesn't even appear in RONR.

 

What sections are those pages?

 

They're both in Section 47 - "Officers."

 

The Board, at the next meeting, should affirm, or re-affirm, its policy on the issue and if the President objects, the Board should consider disciplinary action.

 

The OP just told us that there is no policy on this subject. Also, a motion to reaffirm a policy is not in order. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 104, lines 24-31.

 

I concur that disciplinary action may be appropriate, and the OP should see FAQ #20 if she's interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who decides on who receives the award? Although it sounds like the President overstepped her authority. The Board, at the next meeting, should affirm, or re-affirm, its policy on the issue and if the President objects, the Board should consider disciplinary action.

The executive board nominates and votes for the member of the month. In the past if an executive board member was nominated then they would excuse the self from the vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're both in Section 47 - "Officers."

I am sorry I am still having trouble locating the passages you are quoting. Section 47 from what I see is about null votes. If it is the officer section I am seeing that as article 10, sections 58-62.

Could you possibly copy and paste the passages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP just told us that there is no policy on this subject. Also, a motion to reaffirm a policy is not in order. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 104, lines 24-31.

 

This was only stated while I was writing my response.  However, a policy is a policy regardless of whether or not it is formally written down.  If Board members were never exempt from being considered, then the policy covering nominations included Board members.

 

The executive board nominates and votes for the member of the month. In the past if an executive board member was nominated then they would excuse the self from the vote.

 

Then the Board should simply just keep doing doing this.  The President does not have the authority to decide otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you possibly copy and paste the passages?

 

Well, now that you've clarified the relevant facts, it's clear that pg. 456, lines 25-28 is the passage relevant to your situation, since the President was not ruling on a question of order.

 

"...in many organized societies, the president has duties as an administrative or executive officer; but these are outside the scope of parliamentary law, and the president has such authority only insofar as the bylaws provide it" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 456, lines 25-28).

 

I am using an online edition, if someone could point me to an updated version. I cannot find one with page numbers.

 

You are most likely reading the 4th edition, which is from 1915. The newer editions are still under copyright, and are thus not available online.

 

See here for information about acquiring the current edition of The Right Book.

 

However, a policy is a policy regardless of whether or not it is formally written down.

 

Hm. I've always considered the term "policy" to be the equivalent of "rule," but I suppose a custom could also be viewed as a "policy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Our new President has cancelled all 2nd meetings of the month. Our constitution/ by-laws says that we shall have 2 regular meetings a month , 2nd and 4th Thursdays. However, in a later article, we state that the president or Executive may postpone or dispense with any such meetings. Could the President cancel all meetings under this by-law? The same President is not having our customary Executive meetings. We are also constitutionally bound to follow RR. Neither the club nor the Executive was consulted for this decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our new President has cancelled all 2nd meetings of the month. Our constitution/ by-laws says that we shall have 2 regular meetings a month , 2nd and 4th Thursdays. However, in a later article, we state that the president or Executive may postpone or dispense with any such meetings. Could the President cancel all meetings under this by-law? The same President is not having our customary Executive meetings. We are also constitutionally bound to follow RR. Neither the club nor the Executive was consulted for this decision.

 

It's up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

 

For future reference, it's generally best to post a new question as a new topic, even if an existing topic appears similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...