Executed Decision by the president

[Guest Denise]

Our alumni chapter voted to stop planning our 2014 Masquerade Ball due to very little forecasted profit.  Vote was 13-For, 7- Against.  Vote passed.  We called the hotel the next morning to cancel and get 1/2 of our hotel deposit ($500) back.

Our president sends out an email the very next morning stating that she was going to be the new chair person.  She asked that we not cancel the hotel, she was making an executive decision to forgo with planning the ball.  Can the president do this when the body voted to cancel event?

 

Thanks,

Denise in Texas

[Gary c Tesser]

THe bylaws give her absolute despotic powers, don't they?

-- Otherwise, wherever would she get idea that she remotely has any authority to do something like this?

("Executive decision," eh?)

[Josh Martin]

Can the president do this when the body voted to cancel event?

 

No.

 

I recommend a look at FAQ #20.

[Shmuel Gerber]

There are a couple of difficulties here.

 

First, I assume that the chapter had previously decided to plan the ball. So, a 13-7 vote is not a two-thirds vote, which means that unless there was previous notice of the motion (or the total membership is 25 or less), the motion to stop planning was not properly adopted.

 

(Second, I don't think the questioner meant to say what she said: "Our alumni chapter voted to stop planning our 2014 Masquerade Ball … Our president sends out an email … stating that … she was making an executive decision to forgo with planning the ball." Sounds like that is exactly what the chapter decided to do. Or maybe she just decided to make the ball without planning it, which maybe also is what the chapter decided to do.)

[Josh Martin]

First, I assume that the chapter had previously decided to plan the ball. So, a 13-7 vote is not a two-thirds vote, which means that unless there was previous notice of the motion (or the total membership is 25 or less), the motion to stop planning was not properly adopted.

 

True, but at this point, does it matter?

 

(Second, I don't think the questioner meant to say what she said: "Our alumni chapter voted to stop planning our 2014 Masquerade Ball … Our president sends out an email … stating that … she was making an executive decision to forgo with planning the ball." Sounds like that is exactly what the chapter decided to do.

 

Yeah, I was puzzled by that too, but the fact that she requested not to cancel the hotel suggests that someone is confused about the meaning of "forgo."

 

Or maybe she just decided to make the ball without planning it, which maybe also is what the chapter decided to do.)

 

This isn't a serious suggestion, is it?

[Shmuel Gerber]

First, I assume that the chapter had previously decided to plan the ball. So, a 13-7 vote is not a two-thirds vote, which means that unless there was previous notice of the motion (or the total membership is 25 or less), the motion to stop planning was not properly adopted.

 

True, but at this point, does it matter?

 

I don't have a good answer for that. My own interpretation would be that this counts as a valid motion to rescind any previously adopted motion to plan the ball, and so if the presiding officer already declared the new motion adopted, it would be too late to raise a point of order after that meeting. But there may be other interpretations.

 

 

Or maybe she just decided to make the ball without planning it, which maybe also is what the chapter decided to do.

 

This isn't a serious suggestion, is it?

 

It was serious only in trying to convey the point that the substantive words involved in making decisions ought to count for at least as much as the procedural happenings (or dictatorial happenings, as the case may be). Or maybe I was just unconsciously manifesting some sourness in reaction to having read the word "forecasted."

[J. J.]

Was there any notice for the motion to "forgo?"

[Dan Honemann]

There are a couple of difficulties here.

 

First, I assume that the chapter had previously decided to plan the ball. So, a 13-7 vote is not a two-thirds vote, which means that unless there was previous notice of the motion (or the total membership is 25 or less), the motion to stop planning was not properly adopted.

 

 

True, but at this point, does it matter?

 

 

I don't have a good answer for that. My own interpretation would be that this counts as a valid motion to rescind any previously adopted motion to plan the ball, and so if the presiding officer already declared the new motion adopted, it would be too late to raise a point of order after that meeting. But there may be other interpretations.

 

Other reasonable interpretations?

[Shmuel Gerber]

Other reasonable interpretations?

 

Well, page 251 of RONR 11th edition doesn't explicitly state that if a motion in the form of Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted was  adopted by less than the requisite vote, it is too late (after the usual timeliness period has elapsed) to raise a point of order that it conflicts with a main motion previously adopted and still in force; and in this case, the main motion might not have been clearly stated in the form of Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted.

With those two factors taken together, I think there could be other reasonably reasonable interpretations, if not totally reasonable.

[Guest Erica]

3 people abstained from voting. Forgot to mention. Backsotry: Last year our chapter voted to have a 2014 gala. Once we started looking at the profit numbers, it did not make sense to spend $10,000 and only profit roughtly around $600 after all expenses are paid So on last Thursday, the planning committee presented the plans and wanted the body to decide should we keep the event on the calendar as a fundraiser. The body voted to cancel the event and a get 1/2 of the deposit back. The president really wants to have this gala, so she made an executive decision to move forward with the gala even though the body voted against. Thanks. I hope this helps

[Dan Honemann]

3 people abstained from voting. Forgot to mention. Backsotry: Last year our chapter voted to have a 2014 gala. Once we started looking at the profit numbers, it did not make sense to spend $10,000 and only profit roughtly around $600 after all expenses are paid So on last Thursday, the planning committee presented the plans and wanted the body to decide should we keep the event on the calendar as a fundraiser. The body voted to cancel the event and a get 1/2 of the deposit back. The president really wants to have this gala, so she made an executive decision to move forward with the gala even though the body voted against. Thanks. I hope this helps

 

Josh Martin's response in post #3 remains the correct answer.