President and VP pushing their own agenda

[Guest Nathan]

So I am on the executive of my son's minor baseball league, and the President and VP have been pushing to make a rule that would make a pitcher on my son's team ineligible for the remainder of the season. There has been a vote (not done correctly so if disputed it won't stand) where the two teams of the president and VP's sons were the only members to vote in favor of a rule change, while the rest of the executive voted to leave the rules as is. Since this "vote", the President and VP have both been sending abrasive emails to the executive (and 1 non-executive member) about me, attacking my character, and credibility. In addition, the President and VP and 2 other executive members (who are also parents of kids on the two teams that the P & VP's sons are on) held a meeting, without quorum, and discussed details that they refuse to share with anyone else, and made a decision to put this issue to a vote.

My question is what can be done in this case to end this poor behavior at the next meeting, and how to address this invalid meeting that occurred? More specifically, how would one prove that these executive members are pushing the agenda of their sons' teams, and ignoring the fact that the majority of the executive has already expressed that they do not want to address this rule change any further, and what sort of consequences/disciplinary action should occur?

I have the support of the majority of the executive, but these emails just won't stop, and it is not benefiting the league to have this behavior continue. I've read about censuring, but that seems to not be enough in this case. Any advise is appreciated.

PS: there are no "terms" for executive members in the little league constitution, no processes for disciplinary action, and also no rules have been broken with respect to any of the players my son's baseball league.

[jstackpo]

In reference to your "PS":  do the league constitution/bylaws adopt RONR as a parliamentary authority?

 

Except for your remark about a vote "not done correctly", there isn't much that RONR can do to help you. 

 

RONR deals (mainly) with what goes on in meetings, not in e-mail.

 

Chapter 20 (heavy going, unfortunately) is where you will have to start.

 

And at the next proper meeting of your executive board, be sure to have your friends with you in case another (?) vote is taken.  Since you, and others-?, were not notified of the inquorate meeting you describe in the first paragraph, anything that happened there (even if there had been a quorum present) is completely null and void.

[Guest Nathan]

Yes we do use Roberts Rules as the parliamentary authority. The vote "not done correctly" was done by email, but the President is acting and reporting as if it will stand, but this could be a rouse to get some executive members to think the issue is over and not attend the next meeting. The inquorate meeting was announced, but only a day before and there was no specific time for it and the 4 members just started it when they wanted.

I feel confident the rules pertaining to what constitutes an acceptable meeting, but I am unsure of how to address poor behavior and out of order comments or motions at meetings, and am looking for advise on that, as well as if and how to remove these members if it gets that far, which I am hoping it won't, but want to be prepared if need be.

Thanks in advance.

[jstackpo]

RONR doesn't do much for "poor behavior" (outside of meetings, anyway); stuff that is out of order is handled by raising an appropriate point of order  --  p. 247ff.

 

If you haven't seen it, get a copy of RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will really need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link. Or in your local bookstore.

 

Was the inquorate meeting a "Special Meeting" (p. 91)?; i.e. not one that is or was regularly scheduled?  Do your bylaws authorize calling special meetings?  If so, the bylaws should say how and by who.  If not, then you can tell folks that the meeting was completely improper, and raise a point of order about it next (regular) meeting.

 

The kind of problem you seem to be having may best be worked on by a real live parliamentarian to assist you:

 

Anticipate your
Continuing  big troubles
Are procedural?

Should get in touch with
Real parliamentarian
In your area

As soon as you can
(Not virtual ones like us)
For consultations.

(Can you do Haiku better, please?)

Contact either (or both) the ...

National Association of Parliamentarians
213 South Main St.
Independence, MO  64050-3850

Phone: 888-627-2929
Fax: 816-833-3893;  
e-mail: hq@NAP2.org  
<<www.parliamentarians.org>>

or

American Institute of Parliamentarians
550M Ritchie Highway #271
Severna Park, MD  21146

Phone: 888-664-0428
Fax: 410-544-4640
e-mail: aip@aipparl.org
<<www.aipparl.org>>

for a reference or information.

[Gary Novosielski]

At the next valid meeting, you should raise a Point of Order that the "rule" passed at the inquorate or e-mail vote is null and void.   The president will be forced to rule on your point of order, and give his reasons.  Presumably he will rule that the point is not well taken. 

 

At that point, you say "I appeal from the decision of the chair," and a friend of yours immediately calls out "Second!"   At this point the ruling of the chair becomes open to debate, with each member speaking no more than once, except the chair, who may speak first, and last. 

 

The question is put, "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?"   It takes a majority No vote to overrule the chair, but you say you have a majority with you, so you're good to go.

 

You can also consider motions of censure against the chair for failing to properly enforce and obey the rules.  And, if the e-mails could be considered conduct tending to disturb the well-being of the organization, he and perhaps others can be censured for that as well.  [p. 644, l. 3-7]  Censure carries with it no punishment beyond the scolding component, but it's often enough to change people's behavior.  If it's not, consult Chapter XX (20) of RONR.