Presidential Rights

[Brent134]

In Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th edition) on page 332-33

 

"Whenever the chair becomes convinced that one or more members are using parliamentary forms for obstructive purposes, he should either not recognize these members or he should rule that such motions are out of order."

 

Improper Motions

 

"Motions that conflict with the corporate charter, constitution or bylaws of a society, or with procedural rules prescribed by national, state, or local laws, are out of order, and if any motion of this kind is adopted, it is null and void."

 

"No motion can be introduced that is outside the object of the society or assembly as defined in the bylaws."

 

At our Union meeting, a member proposed a motion that was not correlated to our bylaws and was borderline trying to impact how I choose to fulfill my Presidential Duties. I created a Union Facebook page to inform our membership with our Union's name and invited anyone that was part of our Bargaining Unit.

 

This is a branch off of my personal Facebook page that I choose to update and keep the membership current with the proper information on a day-to-day basis. If I die tomorrow, the page doesn't continue on, it is not operated by the Union, nor does dues money pay anyone to administer it.

 

A motion was made to make me delete this page and subsequently require me to change the name of the page instead. I ruled the motion out of order as I felt it violated my own personal liberty and would set a horrible precedent in the future. I also have a vehicle that has our Union logo on it, if this sort of motion were allowed, it would set the precedent that someone can make motions telling you that you are not allowed to wear the Union's T-shirt, not allowed to have a Union decal on your vehicle, not allowed to marry an anti-union wife, or make a motion that everyone at the meeting will be given $1,000.

 

If something like this were deemed acceptable, what is to stop the membership from making a motion to not allow an Officer to hold an aisle meeting with the membership they represent?

 

The motion was well outside our bylaws and I ruled it out of order. Certain proposals can not be entertained for fear of future precedence for the membership body. I am writing to confirm my interpretation of the Chair's obligation to rule certain motions out of order is fitting in this circumstance.

[Guest Edgar]

Seems to me you're acting more like a tyrant than a president.
 
But stay tuned for a more sympathetic reply.

[Josh Martin]

At our Union meeting, a member proposed a motion that was not correlated to our bylaws and was borderline trying to impact how I choose to fulfill my Presidential Duties. I created a Union Facebook page to inform our membership with our Union's name and invited anyone that was part of our Bargaining Unit.

 

This is a branch off of my personal Facebook page that I choose to update and keep the membership current with the proper information on a day-to-day basis. If I die tomorrow, the page doesn't continue on, it is not operated by the Union, nor does dues money pay anyone to administer it.

 

A motion was made to make me delete this page and subsequently require me to change the name of the page instead. I ruled the motion out of order as I felt it violated my own personal liberty and would set a horrible precedent in the future. I also have a vehicle that has our Union logo on it, if this sort of motion were allowed, it would set the precedent that someone can make motions telling you that you are not allowed to wear the Union's T-shirt, not allowed to have a Union decal on your vehicle, not allowed to marry an anti-union wife, or make a motion that everyone at the meeting will be given $1,000.

 

If something like this were deemed acceptable, what is to stop the membership from making a motion to not allow an Officer to hold an aisle meeting with the membership they represent?

 

There is really no parliamentary reason these motions are unacceptable, provided they do not conflict with the organization's rules or procedural rules in applicable law. It's possible they would run afoul of the "scope of the organization's object" rule, but there are ways around this rule. The assembly may admit a motion outside of the organization's object by a 2/3 vote. It is entirely possible (even likely) that some of these motions will get the society in legal trouble and/or cause a good many members to leave the organization, and so they are probably inadvisable, but that does not make them out of order.

 

These dramatic examples aren't really very relevant to your question, though.

 

The motion was well outside our bylaws and I ruled it out of order. Certain proposals can not be entertained for fear of future precedence for the membership body. I am writing to confirm my interpretation of the Chair's obligation to rule certain motions out of order is fitting in this circumstance.

 

It is correct that the chair should rule a motion out of order if it is outside of the scope of the bylaws. I would note, however, that a member could move to admit a motion outside of the organization's object. Such a motion is in order and requires a 2/3 vote for adoption.

 

I have no idea whether it is correct that this particular motion is outside of the scope of the organization's object in the bylaws.

 

Seems to me you're acting more like a tyrant than a president.

 

But stay tuned for a more sympathetic reply.

 

It seems the OP believed that the motion was outside of the scope of the organization's bylaws. This may or may not have been correct, but such a ruling is hardly tyrannical.

[Brent134]

How so? Why would it be tyranny? Certain items you can't allow the membership to bum-rush the Union Hall convincing 20-30 buddies

to try and control something through one simple motion. There is a fine line between what a Union motion can control as it pertains to the bylaws

as opposed to something in one's personal life. Certain items are out of order for a reason protecting the Union and the membership

from non-sensical motions in the future.

[Guest Edgar]

It seems the OP believed that the motion was outside of the scope of the organization's bylaws. This may or may not have been correct, but such a ruling is hardly tyrannical.

 

I wasn't questioning the ruling, just the tone of the post.

[Josh Martin]

How so? Why would it be tyranny? Certain items you can't allow the membership to bum-rush the Union Hall convincing 20-30 buddies

to try and control something through one simple motion. There is a fine line between what a Union motion can control as it pertains to the bylaws

as opposed to something in one's personal life. Certain items are out of order for a reason protecting the Union and the membership

from non-sensical motions in the future.

 

While I think it was incorrect to call you "tyrannical," it also seems unfair to call the motion "nonsensical." The union undoubtedly has an interest in controlling the use of its name, so I can see why some members would object to an officer using it in the title of his personal Facebook page. This does not necessarily mean that the motion was in order or that the union's objections would hold up in court (that's a question for a lawyer), but I'd hardly call it "nonsensical."

 

Now, if a motion is actually nonsensical the chair can rule it out of order as frivolous, but I don't think that applies here.

 

I wasn't questioning the ruling, just the tone of the post.

 

I'd call it more melodramatic than tyrannical.

[Guest Edgar]

Certain items you can't allow the membership to bum-rush the Union Hall convincing 20-30 buddies to try and control something through one simple motion.

 

Try repeating this to yourself: "I'm only the president . . . I'm only the president . . . ".

[Brent134]

Josh Martin - "It is entirely possible, (even likely) that some of these motions will get the society in legal trouble and/or cause a good many members to leave the organization, and so they are probably inadvisable, but that does not make them out of order."

 

I appreciate the comment, but would like a little more clarity. As the chair of the meeting, if I allow motions that are out of line that cross the line between what a Union

motion can control and what it can not and then open up the doors to put our society in legal trouble as the overseer of our organization, what then does that make me?

 

If I allow activity at a Union meeting that enables a member to make (what you view as extreme) motions that over-step the boundaries, at what point do I open myself up for a charge to be filed as I now am not protecting my membership from the scope of my Constitutional Oath?

 

Minus the extreme example - the simple examples of wearing the Union logo, a button, a decal on a vehicle which aren't extreme, however probable for something to come up in the course of a motion if one didn't like another individual, can not be entertained as a proper motion as we have no control over what someone wears, or puts on their vehicle as it is their personal right.

 

Thanks for your rapid responses!

[Brent134]

Guest Edgar, it has nothing to do with my position. It is protecting the membership from motions that cross the line between a Union's ability to control one's personal life outside of the scope of the bylaws.

 

Now, to your point, if the bylaws stated that no member can utilize the Union name at any time without the prior approval of the entire membership body, then I would be tyrannical. But, if it is not in the bylaws, then a Union motion can not be controlling.

[Josh Martin]

Josh Martin - "It is entirely possible, (even likely) that some of these motions will get the society in legal trouble and/or cause a good many members to leave the organization, and so they are probably inadvisable, but that does not make them out of order."

 

I appreciate the comment, but would like a little more clarity. As the chair of the meeting, if I allow motions that are out of line that cross the line between what a Union

motion can control and what it can not and then open up the doors to put our society in legal trouble as the overseer of our organization, what then does that make me?

 

A good presiding officer. The fact that a motion conflicts with a non-procedural rule in applicable law does not make it out of order. Likewise, a motion which is legal but is simply a terrible idea is in order.

 

If you are sufficiently concerned about the legality or wisdom of the motion that you feel your duty as a member to speak against the motion outweighs your duty as President to preside, you could relinquish the chair so that you could speak in debate and share your concerns.

 

If I allow activity at a Union meeting that enables a member to make (what you view as extreme) motions that over-step the boundaries, at what point do I open myself up for a charge to be filed as I now am not protecting my membership from the scope of my Constitutional Oath?

 

Ask a lawyer. The preceding paragraph explains the appropriate course of action so far as RONR is concerned. 

 

Minus the extreme example - the simple examples of wearing the Union logo, a button, a decal on a vehicle which aren't extreme, however probable for something to come up in the course of a motion if one didn't like another individual, can not be entertained as a proper motion as we have no control over what someone wears, or puts on their vehicle as it is their personal right.

 

There is no parliamentary reason that a society cannot adopt a motion prescribing what logos, buttons, and decals its members shall wear or place on their vehicles. Members who don't like it are free to leave the society. Since this is a union (and therefore the previous sentence is probably not entirely true), I imagine there may be legal concerns with adopting such motions in your organization, but they remain valid from a parliamentary perspective.

 

Guest Edgar, it has nothing to do with my position. It is protecting the membership from motions that cross the line between a Union's ability to control one's personal life outside of the scope of the bylaws.

 

As noted previously, the one argument you have going for you is that certain motions will indeed exceed the scope of the organization's object in its bylaws, but as I have noted above, that will only get you so far. The assembly may choose to admit a motion which is outside the scope of the organization's object by a 2/3 vote.

 

There is no parliamentary reason that an assembly may not adopt motions which control the details of its members' personal lives.

 

Now, to your point, if the bylaws stated that no member can utilize the Union name at any time without the prior approval of the entire membership body, then I would be tyrannical. But, if it is not in the bylaws, then a Union motion can not be controlling.

 

This is not correct. There is no parliamentary reason that such a motion need to be in the bylaws to be controlling.

[Brent134]

Thank you for the clarification. So, to your comment...."The assembly may choose to admit a motion which is outside the scope of the organization's object by a 2/3 vote."

 

**To that point, if a member disagreed with my ruling of the motion being out of order, it would be their obligation as a participating member of the meeting to make an official motion to appeal the ruling of the chair, and if there were a second, I would then be required to allow the vote to continue as long as the proper amount of votes were approved.

 

"There is no parliamentary reason that an assembly may not adopt motions which control the details of its member's personal lives."

 

Not sure I can stomach this answer, but I will trust your parliamentary experience over mine as this is why I came to this forum. But that answer is very concerning and could put a Union in very legal hot water, not to mention a mass exodus of the membership from opting out of the Union.   Thank you for all of the information.

[Josh Martin]

**To that point, if a member disagreed with my ruling of the motion being out of order, it would be their obligation as a participating member of the meeting to make an official motion to appeal the ruling of the chair, and if there were a second, I would then be required to allow the vote to continue as long as the proper amount of votes were approved..

 

Yes, that's correct. A member might disagree with your ruling that the motion was outside the scope of the bylaws and he would then follow up with an Appeal. An Appeal requires a majority vote in the negative to overturn the chair's ruling (as the question is stated as "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?").

 

On the other hand, a member might acknowledge that the motion was, in fact, outside the scope of the bylaws but nevertheless feels that the assembly should pursue it. In that case, he would move to admit the motion in question, and this motion would require a 2/3 vote in the affirmative for adoption.

 

"There is no parliamentary reason that an assembly may not adopt motions which control the details of its member's personal lives."

 

Not sure I can stomach this answer, but I will trust your parliamentary experience over mine as this is why I came to this forum. But that answer is very concerning and could put a Union in very legal hot water, not to mention a mass exodus of the membership from opting out of the Union.

 

You're not the only person with a responsibility to protect the union. If a motion is potentially illegal or extremely ill-advised (but is not actually out of order), then the onus is on the more sensible members of the assembly to point this out in debate and persuade other members to vote against the motion. (As noted previously, if no one else does this you have the option of relinquishing the chair to speak in debate yourself, but this option should be exercised sparingly.)

 

One other interesting option that I am now remembering is a motion to Object to the Consideration of the Question. Such a motion is used when a motion, while not out of order, is believed to potentially be so damaging that even discussing it would be detrimental to the organization. Much like a Point of Order, the chair may raise such an objection at his own initiative. It does not require a second and is neither debatable nor amendable. The question is stated as "Shall the motion be considered?" If there is a two-thirds vote in the negative, then the objection is sustained and the main motion may not come before the assembly. This motion may only be applied to original main motions and only before debate has begun.

[Brent134]

Thank you very much for all of your help and time, it is very much appreciated.

[Sean Hunt]

Thank you very much for all of your help and time, it is very much appreciated.

I would just add to the conversation that while it is your duty to protect the interests of the union and its members, the union membership at a meeting collectively outrank you. It is their right to pursue whatever ill-advised course of action they wish.

[Thomas Ralph]

A motion such as "That the President shall cease to maintain and shall delete the Facebook page named ______" where _____ is the organization seems perfectly fine to me.

[Brent134]

Sean Hunt -

 

I would have to disagree, at some point the legality and damaging effects of a motion are over and beyond the scope of the Constitution and will in fact violate the objectives of the society.

 

For example, if we went by strictly Parliamentary Procedure, someone could make a motion that I have to put my children up for adoption and if there was a second and the majority passed it, then I suppose the collective

membership outranks my position.

 

If I don't abide by this course of action, according to your logic, I can either have charges filed against me for not doing the will of the membership.

 

There is a balance of Robert's Rules of Order via parliamentary procedure along with the objectives of the membership as outlined by our Constitution that have to be adhered to or myself as a presiding officer allowing

motions that are outside of the scope of our Constitution will put us up for lawsuits or members dropping out of our Union left and right for entertaining motions that are controlling of one's life.

 

Making motions at a Union meeting to tell someone what they can or can't do outside of work that is not tied to our Constitution is wrong and is a violation of our member's rights in which our Union could be liable for.

[Josh Martin]

I would have to disagree, at some point the legality and damaging effects of a motion are over and beyond the scope of the Constitution and will in fact violate the objectives of the society.

 

No one is disagreeing that the chair can and should rule out of order a motion which is outside the scope of the society's object in its bylaws, although as previously noted, the assembly may choose to admit such a motion by a 2/3 vote.

 

A motion may also be ruled out of order if it actually conflicts with the Constitution, and that may not be suspended.

 

The fact that a motion conflicts with nonprocedural rules in applicable law or has damaging effects is not, in and of itself, a valid reason for ruling a motion out of order. There is also not necessarily a connection between these factors. A motion which has potentially severe consequences (legal or otherwise) may well be within the scope of the society's object. Conversely, a perfectly legal and harmless (or even beneficial motion) may be outside the scope of the society's object.

 

For example, if we went by strictly Parliamentary Procedure, someone could make a motion that I have to put my children up for adoption and if there was a second and the majority passed it, then I suppose the collective membership outranks my position.

 

If I don't abide by this course of action, according to your logic, I can either have charges filed against me for not doing the will of the membership.

 

Yes, that is correct, but I'm sure you'll have your lawyer on speed dial in the extremely unlikely event that the assembly adopts such a motion. In a voluntary assembly, of course, the solution to such nonsense would be to tender your resignation from office and from the society and hightail it out of the room with the crazy people.

 

But I really don't think these dramatic examples are at all beneficial with respect to understanding the question originally asked. I don't think it is reasonable to compare a motion requiring you to cease using the union's name in the title of your Facebook page to a motion requiring you to give your children up for adoption.

 

Making motions at a Union meeting to tell someone what they can or can't do outside of work that is not tied to our Constitution is wrong and is a violation of our member's rights in which our Union could be liable for.

 

Again, as previously noted, the chair can rule a motion out of order because it is outside the scope of the organization's object in its bylaws. The chair may not, however, rule a motion out of order for any of the following reasons: that it would violate the non-parliamentary rights of members, that it would tell people what to do outside of their work with the association, that it is morally or ethically wrong, or that the society could be held liable. These are all very good reasons why such a motion should not be adopted, but they would not make the motion out of order.

[Guest Edgar]

I don't think it is reasonable to compare a motion requiring you to cease using the union's name in the title of your Facebook page to a motion requiring you to give your children up for adoption.

 

It's downright . . .what's the word . . . melodramatic.

[Brent134]

It's downright . . .what's the word . . . melodramatic.

 

You aren't understanding the point. The example is extreme intentionally to explain what legality and precedent you set when you allow these types of motions.

 

I have spoken to our Union attorneys who know the scope of our Constitution and Parliamentary Procedure as governed by Robert's Rules of Order as well.

 

Their comment is that as long as MYSELF endorse and administer MY page, and that the Union neither endorses, nor pays for, nor administers that page, than it is outside

the scope of what the general assembly can do as outlined in our Constitution.

 

There has to be a healthy balance between parliamentary procedure and setting a precedent that the membership can propose controlling motions outside the scope of our ability

and putting our Union in legal jeopardy facing crippling and expensive lawsuits over motions that should have been shot down in the first place.

[Dan Honemann]

You aren't understanding the point. The example is extreme intentionally to explain what legality and precedent you set when you allow these types of motions.

 

I have spoken to our Union attorneys who know the scope of our Constitution and Parliamentary Procedure as governed by Robert's Rules of Order as well.

 

Their comment is that as long as MYSELF endorse and administer MY page, and that the Union neither endorses, nor pays for, nor administers that page, than it is outside

the scope of what the general assembly can do as outlined in our Constitution.

 

There has to be a healthy balance between parliamentary procedure and setting a precedent that the membership can propose controlling motions outside the scope of our ability

and putting our Union in legal jeopardy facing crippling and expensive lawsuits over motions that should have been shot down in the first place.

 

Well, then, you have your answer.