Rights of a board to review a decision by a previous board and take action

[bobby101]

Under Robert's rules does a new board have the right to review actions by previous board(s) that clearly violated by-laws and resulted in sanction(s) against members that have already been carried out? If so, what is the procedure to be followed to redress this situation? bobby101

[jstackpo]

Don't view the situation as an "old board" and a "new board"  --  it is the same board all along, just with changes in people serving on the board.

 

And yes the "same board with new people" can "review" and "rescind" (where possible) earlier actions by the board.  See p. 305 for details about rescinding or amending previously adopted motions.

[bobby101]

Mr. Stackpole: That's a quick response, so thank you. Maybe it's just semantics but to my way of thinking when we elect new people to a board and call it the 2014 board, as opposed to the 2013- or any other year- board and the composition of the 2014 board is different from the previous year(s), to me that's an new board. But , to the real issue at hand: we may have some practical difficulty in passing a motion to rescind these actions since there are still 7 members (out of 14 members of the board) from the previous boards who took these illegal actions and may not want to acknowledge these mistakes. Your thoughts? bobby101

[jstackpo]

About all I (and RONR) can do at this point is wish you luck with what seems to now be a political - not parliamentary - problem.

 

Next Board meeting, raise a point of order  --  you are a Board member, I presume  --  that the previously adopted motion was clearly in violation of the bylaws and is therefore null and void - see p. 251.    The chair, if he/she is playing fair, is supposed to rule on the point, and you can take it from there  --  appeal (p. 255) if necessary.

 

Perhaps if the issue is laid out clearly, one of the reluctant 7 will see the light.

[Gary Novosielski]

Mr. Stackpole: That's a quick response, so thank you. Maybe it's just semantics but to my way of thinking when we elect new people to a board and call it the 2014 board, as opposed to the 2013- or any other year- board and the composition of the 2014 board is different from the previous year(s), to me that's an new board. But , to the real issue at hand: we may have some practical difficulty in passing a motion to rescind these actions since there are still 7 members (out of 14 members of the board) from the previous boards who took these illegal actions and may not want to acknowledge these mistakes. Your thoughts? bobby101

 

Well, if nothing else that illustrates why the concept of "new" vs. "old" board is not a particularly useful one.  If many of the members are the same, it's not as new as you might like.  In any case, if there are illegal actions in play, you will probably need to consult a lawyer. 

[Edgar Guest]

Maybe it's just semantics . . . 

 

If you learn just one thing on this forum it should be that words matter.

[Guest Guest]

My response to the 3 responses above in order:  Mr. Stackpole--Thanks for wishing me luck. And, you're right; it  has become a political problem with members of the old (other, former, previous, different, 2012/ 2013 boards, or however you want to refer to them) whatever still holding a majority position on our 2014 board and, because they violated the by-laws are probably not too eager to acknowledge that fact. That's why we're in the situation we're currently facing. I'm attempting to find a parliamentary approach, if there is one, via Robert's rules to address and remedy this situation. I am not currently a board member but have served our organization as a Director and Officer (including as President) for about a dozen years of my 32 years as a member and know clearly how a board should function following the by-laws and in the best interest of the club. Our next meeting, in about 3 1/2 weeks is a membership meeting and I assume I have the right at that meeting to raise my point. Our board president will act  as the presiding officer at that meeting. My understanding is that board and he have no special rights  different from mine or any other members' present at the meeting. It would be helpful to me if you -or any of the responders- could briefly outline when in the meeting I should raise the point of order, whether I need a second, and what happens if the presiding officer doesn't want to address my point. He's a "not at this time" kind of guy on some of the other issues I've raised. Thanks for the Robert's citation.           To  Gary: I have already begun discussions with a lawyer but I will decide whether to pull that trigger. I have informed the board of what I'm doing and am now hearing that this will further inflame the members against me; I can handle it.       To Mr. Guest--- Thanks for mentioning a fact that certainly applies to more than this forum and that I learned many years ago but is always worth repeating. Unfortunately, many of the words uttered against me on these issues I've raised are non-responsive to my questions and, in some case, outright lies. bobby101    I'm messaging from a different computer so I guess this posting is coming in as a guest but I am a member. My apology if this adds to some confusion; always learning.  bobby101

[Richard Brown]

 To  Gary: I have already begun discussions with a lawyer but I will decide whether to pull that trigger. I have informed the board of what I'm doing and am now hearing that this will further inflame the members against me; I can handle it.      

 

 I'm messaging from a different computer so I guess this posting is coming in as a guest but I am a member. My apology if this adds to some confusion; always learning.  bobby101

 

When a member files suit against an organization he belongs to, it always almost divides the organization and causes problems and hard feelings that can linger for years.  It tears an organization apart.  It should always be a last resort and undertaken only after a lot of thought as to the consequences.

 

As to signing in, you should be able to do that from any computer in the world... even from in space.  Why does being on a different computer prevent you from signing in?

[Edgar Guest]

As to signing in, you should be able to do that from any computer in the world.  Why does being on a different computer prevent you from signing in?

 

Well, as I'm "permanently" signed in (logged on?) from my computer at home, I never remember my password (and, yes, I know that it can easily be retrieved and/or re-set). So, when I'm on the road (i.e. at the local library), I post as "Guest_Edgar", not "Edgar Guest".

 

One should at least post as something other than "Guest_Guest".

[Richard Brown]

Well, as I'm "permanently" signed in (logged on?) from my computer at home, I never remember my password (and, yes, I know that it can easily be retrieved and/or re-set). So, when I'm on the road (i.e. at the local library), I post as "Guest_Edgar", not "Edgar Guest".

 

Ahhh, I wondered why you sometimes post as "Guest Edgar"!   I know how you hate those captchas!  

[Edgar Guest]

I know how you hate those captchas! 

 

Actually, I sometimes miss reassembling bunnies and babies. It seems like such a charitable thing to do.

[Josh Martin]

Our next meeting, in about 3 1/2 weeks is a membership meeting and I assume I have the right at that meeting to raise my point. Our board president will act  as the presiding officer at that meeting. My understanding is that board and he have no special rights  different from mine or any other members' present at the meeting. It would be helpful to me if you -or any of the responders- could briefly outline when in the meeting I should raise the point of order, whether I need a second,

 

A Point of Order does not require a second. I think I'll need to know what this Point of Order is about to know for sure when it would be appropriate to raise it, although New Business is probably a safe bet.

 

what happens if the presiding officer doesn't want to address my point. He's a "not at this time" kind of guy on some of the other issues I've raised.

 

Too bad for him. The presiding officer is require to respond to all non-dilatory points of order. He must rule the Point of Order either "well taken" or "not well taken" and provide his reasoning. If he rules it "not well taken," then you'd follow up with an Appeal (which does require a second), and that will place it in the hands of the membership.

 

If the chair ignores a proper Point of Order or Appeal, see RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 650-651.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Bobby.  You say this, in this thread's OP:

 

... does a ... board have the right to review actions by previous board(s)...? If so, what is the procedure to be followed to redress this situation? bobby101

 

But Bobby.  You then say this, is post #3:

 

... : we may have some practical difficulty in passing a motion to rescind these actions since there are still 7 members (out of 14 members of the board) from the previous boards who took these illegal actions and may not want to acknowledge these mistakes. Your thoughts? bobby101

 

I'm confused:  do you expect the board to review previous actions, as the Original Post suggests, or not?  Or what?

 

And. Of prime importance:  mind you what Richard Brown says in Post 8.  Tape it to your bathroom mirror so you see (and, mirabile dictu, read now and then) it a few times a day, or staple it to your forehead if you don't look in the mirror often.  I have never understood people's need to look at them- lovely - selves in order to wash their hands.  Even if it's both of them sometimes.  And/or ask Mrs. 101 to remind you about it.  Several times a day.  Be glad I'm not Mrs. 101, I'd remind you several times an hour.  Great Steaming Cobnuts:  to reluct to institute in-house, appropriate discipline for gross and egregious misbehavior (persecuting their enemies) on someone because you think it might be vindictive (see other threads), but instead moving towards suing, is like holding back from punching someone who has more than earned it, preferring to shoving a grenade into his mouth instead.

 

Nnacy N.

[Guest Nancy N>]

... Too bad for him. The presiding officer is require to respond to all non-dilatory points of order. He must rule the Point of Order either "well taken" or "not well taken" and provide his reasoning. If he rules it "not well taken," then you'd follow up with an Appeal (which does require a second), and that will place it in the hands of the membership.

 

And I suppose your food always tastes like chocolate custard but has the nutrition of a codfish fillet with steamed broccoli, arugula, cucumber and radish salad and a baked potato with olive oil and a soupc'on of fresh crushed garlic (one bare drop of butter)?

 

 

 

If the chair ignores a proper Point of Order or Appeal, see RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 650-651.

 

You think that's gonna fly, with, remember, Bobby's fellow members who barely want to sit still for the elections, who we have been working with Bobby for weeks about how to nail them to their chairs so he can enchant them with his 53 top bylaw amendments?