Did a breach occur, failure to recognize appeal of chair ruling

[Guest John]

I need to know two things from this question: (1) did a breach occur and (2) what is the status of any motions presented and voted upon after the breach, (3) if a breach, how to resolve.

 

At a meeting two months ago there was a question about whether a member (an alternate for an ex-officio) could continue in an elected position after their ex-officio had been termed out.

 

When this alternate assumed their position as an elected vice-chair Member A called a point of order stating that he believed that the alternate can not just change ex-officios and continue in an elected position. That there should be an election. Our by laws are silent on this so Roberts domiates.

 

The Chair made a ruling that the alternate can simply be assigned as alternate to a new ex-officio and no lapse of service (vacancy) in the elected position would occur.

 

Member B, appealed the ruling of the Chair and the appeal was seconded. The Chair refused to call a vote after repeated requests by Member B to do so. The Chair argued that since the assembly had approved the agenda no such vote could be taken without a 2/3 vote to change the agenda. Much arguing occured and a vote was never taken. Member B requested that this appeal and the refusal to vote be noted accurately in the minutes. (Which it was not.)

 

The Committee proceeded to other business and passed several motions.

 

Question 1: after the chair refused to call the vote on the appeal, is the Committee in breach?

 

Question 2: if a breach did occur, what is the status of these other motions? Are the actions taken on them legitimate or are the votes/actions moot? This would include financial actions taken at the following meeting.

 

Question 3: Lastly, how to resolve?

 

Thanks very much.

John

 

[jstackpo]

1)  No. It doesn't appear to be a continuing breach as defined on p. 251.  But it sure does sound like grounds for disciplining the presiding officer, or getting a new one ASAP who knows Robert's Rules.  And plays fair.

 

Since the breach wasn't a continuing one (and even if it was, I suspect) properly adopted subsequent motions are not affected.  They stand as adopted.

[Chris Harrison]

1) That is a bit of a difficult question.  That the Presiding Officer refused to acknowledge the Appeal and the members didn't press the issue (which they could have per RONR pp. 650-651) doesn't in of itself render anything the Committee invalid.  However, the underlying question of whether this person is actually still a member and thus has voting rights could become problematic if the outcome of a vote could have been affected by this person's vote.  If this person is not actually still a member and his vote could have affected a result that vote would be null and void (RONR p. 251 [a,d]).

2) See #1.

3) Bring it up again at the next meeting and be prepared to press the issue if necessary.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

 

At a meeting two months ago there was a question about

whether a member (an alternate for an ex-officio) could continue in an elected position

after their ex-officio had been termed out.

 

When this alternate assumed their position as an elected vice-chair

Member A called a point of order

stating that he believed that the alternate can not just change ex-officios and continue in an elected position.

That there should be an election.

I am more interested in the original problem than the breach situation.

 

Since the position was an elected position, then why would end the term of office early?

Why would someone else's position affect a separate elected position?

 

E.g., For an officer position, if a person is elected to VP, that election stands even if the P loses his office. (Just the opposite; the VP ascends to P.)

E.g., For a convention, an alternate is elected for a possible delegate position, then the alternate never loses that position completely if a delegate were to die. (Just the opposite.)

[Josh Martin]

The Chair argued that since the assembly had approved the agenda no such vote could be taken without a 2/3 vote to change the agenda.

 

Nothing in RONR provides any such thing, and the whole argument sounds like nonsense to me, since the fact that an Appeal will rarely be known in advance.

 

Question 1: after the chair refused to call the vote on the appeal, is the Committee in breach?

 

Question 2: if a breach did occur, what is the status of these other motions? Are the actions taken on them legitimate or are the votes/actions moot? This would include financial actions taken at the following meeting.

 

Question 3: Lastly, how to resolve?

 

1.) No. While the chair's action was improper, it did not create a continuing breach.

2.) There is no continuing breach, and even if there was, it would have no effect on the other actions taken by the committee.

3.) Try again. This time, if the chair refuses to take a vote on the Appeal, see RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 650-651 for the next steps.

 

All this business about "alternates" would need to be in your organization's bylaws, and I don't really understand the situation, so I haven't the slightest idea whether the chair's ruling is correct.

 

There might be a continuing breach surrounding the original situation (if the chair's ruling is indeed incorrect).

[Kim Goldsworthy]

 

Question 2: if a breach did occur, what is the status of these other motions?

Are the actions taken on them legitimate or are the votes/actions moot?

This would include financial actions taken at the following meeting.

Let's clarify.

 

Are you asking,

"Since agenda item #N was not handled properly,

then is agenda item #N+1, #N+2, #N+3, . . ., [last],

to be considered invalid?

 

No.

Of course not.

An error on one item of business will not invalidate the next item of unrelated business.

[Timothy]

Well it might, if it impacts who has a right to vote.

[Guest Guest]

Nothing in RONR provides any such thing, and the whole argument sounds like nonsense to me, since the fact that an Appeal will rarely be known in advance.

 

 

1.) No. While the chair's action was improper, it did not create a continuing breach.

2.) There is no continuing breach, and even if there was, it would have no effect on the other actions taken by the committee.

3.) Try again. This time, if the chair refuses to take a vote on the Appeal, see RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 650-651 for the next steps.

 

All this business about "alternates" would need to be in your organization's bylaws, and I don't really understand the situation, so I haven't the slightest idea whether the chair's ruling is correct.

 

There might be a continuing breach surrounding the original situation (if the chair's ruling is indeed incorrect).

This is a political central committee. As such we have "ex-officio" members who are elected officials and do not attend our county meetings. By law they can appoint "alternates" to attend for them and vote. When an ex-officio loses his status (i.e. does not run for political office again) his alternate also loses his position. An alternate is dependent on his/her ex-officio for membership on the committe. Our by laws state that only regular members and  alternates of ex-officio members can hold elected office within the committee. An alternate for a regular member can not hold an elected position within the committee. Our by laws do not discuss this issue so the chair gave a rulliing/opinionwith which some members disagreed. The Chair did not want the ruling up for a vote. I ("Member B") felt this issue would set a significant precident and deserved the concensus of the full committee.

 

Tx.

John

 

John

[Kim Goldsworthy]

By law they can appoint "alternates" to attend for them and vote.

When an ex-officio loses his status (i.e. does not run for political office again) his alternate also loses his position.

You are describing a PROXY situation.

Robert's Rules of Order will not contain rules for proxy voting, since proxy practice is not part of a deliberative assembly.

 

It's a good thing you weren't asking questions about THIS.

[Josh Martin]

This is a political central committee. As such we have "ex-officio" members who are elected officials and do not attend our county meetings. By law they can appoint "alternates" to attend for them and vote. When an ex-officio loses his status (i.e. does not run for political office again) his alternate also loses his position. An alternate is dependent on his/her ex-officio for membership on the committe. Our by laws state that only regular members and  alternates of ex-officio members can hold elected office within the committee. An alternate for a regular member can not hold an elected position within the committee. Our by laws do not discuss this issue so the chair gave a rulliing/opinionwith which some members disagreed. The Chair did not want the ruling up for a vote. I ("Member B") felt this issue would set a significant precident and deserved the concensus of the full committee.

 

Okay, I think I understand the situation now. The individual in question served as an alternate for one of the ex-officio members of the committee and was elected to an office in the committee. The ex-officio member left the committee as his term in his elected office ended, consequently causing his alternate to lose that status. Subsequently, some other ex-officio member appointed the member as his alternate. The question, then, is whether the member loses his office because he was (albeit very briefly) no longer an alternate on the committee and therefore not eligible for that office under the committee's rules.

 

I quite agree that the committee should have the opportunity to decide this issue for itself and I would suggest trying again at the next meeting, as noted above. Additionally, there are a number of customized rules in this situation, so this will ultimately be up to the organization to decide for itself. We discussed a somewhat similar situation, however, so that discussion may be of interest to you.

 

It is also my understanding that the only question at this time is whether the individual in question is validly an officer of the committee, due to the lapse in his status as an alternate. There is no question regarding the fact that he is (and was, at the time of the meeting) an alternate on the committee with the right to vote. If this is correct, then there is certainly no question regarding the legitimacy of any business conducted after the Point of Order and attempted Appeal.

[Guest John]

I want to thank everyone who replied to my question and apologize for the lateness of this email.

 

Josh has it exactly correct in terms of his understanding. Obviously I agree that the entire committee should have been able to weigh in on the topic. The decision is too significant, IMHO, for a simple ruling by the chair. Also very glad that the consensus is that there is no problem with the subsequent actions of the committee.

 

Followup: I had a meeting late last week with the Chair, the alternate in question and the parliamentarian to discuss this issue. My intention is to bring back the appeal since it was never voted on and have the committee decide. If the chair's ruling is overturned then they can then wave the bylaws and have an immediate vote (without required 15 day minimum notice) to re-elect the vice chair. The parliamentarian who argued against the appeal, and would not allow a vote, said a successful appeal would have had the effect of removing an elected official which requires a 2/3 vote of the committee.

 

Thanks again for the great discussion and all the help.

 

John

[Richard Brown]

First, I, too, agree with Josh's analysis and conclusions in post No 10.

 

But, now I'm lost again.

 

Followup: I had a meeting late last week with the Chair, the alternate in question and the parliamentarian to discuss this issue. My intention is to bring back the appeal since it was never voted on and have the committee decide.

Huh?  Bring back the appeal?  Do you mean, perhaps, "Renew the point of order that the chair's ruling that the alternate never lost his officer status is in error"?   Or, perhaps, make a new point of order that "the alternate is no longer an officer"?  I don't think you can "renew" or "bring back an appeal" from a previous meeting.  But you can raise a point of order again that the alternate is no longer an officer.  You can then appeal from that ruling, but I don't see how you can appeal now from a ruling made at the last meeting.

 

 If the chair's ruling is overturned then they can then wave the bylaws and have an immediate vote (without required 15 day minimum notice) to re-elect the vice chair.

Huh?? again.  They can waive the bylaws??   How?  Since when?

 

They can have an immediate vote on the appeal.  Is that what you mean?  Doing that doesn't involve waiving the bylaws... which is something you can't do.   You have an immediate vote on an appeal from the decision of the chair because that is what your parliamentary authority says you do.   But, how do you figure that you can have an immediate vote to re-elect the vice chair?

 

 

 The parliamentarian who argued against the appeal, and would not allow a vote, said a successful appeal would have had the effect of removing an elected official which requires a 2/3 vote of the committee.

Huh?? a third time.  Where on earth does the parliamentarian get that idea?   To NOT allow a vote on the appeal likely has the effect of allowing an erroneous decision to stand and for someone to improperly serve as an officer.  It doesn't matter what the effect of overruling the chair's decision would be:   The assembly has the right to vote on an appeal from a decision of the chair.  To not allow a vote is to allow the chair to become a despot.... whatever he says goes and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

If someone who doesn't meet the qualifications for office.... such as in this case if the alternate ceased to be a member, even if only briefly..... all it takes is a point of order that he does not meet the qualifications to remove him from office.  You don't need to go through the "removal from office" process if someone doesn't meet the qualifications set out in the bylaws.

 

Edited to add:  See pages 445 lines 13 - 22 and page 251 lines 3 - 10 for the rules on the election of someone who does not meet the qualifications in the bylaws.

[Josh Martin]

...they can then wave the bylaws and have an immediate vote (without required 15 day minimum notice) to re-elect the vice chair

 

It is not permissible to waive a bylaw requirement for 15 days of notice unless the bylaws so provide.

 

Huh?? a third time.  Where on earth does the parliamentarian get that idea?   To NOT allow a vote on the appeal likely has the effect of allowing an erroneous decision to stand and for someone to improperly serve as an officer.  It doesn't matter what the effect of overruling the chair's decision would be:   The assembly has the right to vote on an appeal from a decision of the chair.  To not allow a vote is to allow the chair to become a despot.... whatever he says goes and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

If someone who doesn't meet the qualifications for office.... such as in this case if the alternate ceased to be a member, even if only briefly..... all it takes is a point of order that he does not meet the qualifications to remove him from office.  You don't need to go through the "removal from office" process if someone doesn't meet the qualifications set out in the bylaws.

 

Edited to add:  See pages 445 lines 13 - 22 and page 251 lines 3 - 10 for the rules on the election of someone who does not meet the qualifications in the bylaws.

 

This situation is a bit more complicated. If the alternate had been ineligible for office when he was elected or was ineligible for office now, then this would be easy. This alternate, however, is currently eligible for office and was eligible for office at the time he was elected and when the Point of Order was raised. So there is currently no violation of the bylaws, and I'm not entirely certain that the brief time he was ineligible for office constitutes a continuing breach.

 

I also suppose I should not necessarily assume that there ever was a time when the alternate was ineligible for office, since the chair seems to dispute that fact and claims that there, in fact, never was a time (however brief) that the individual in question was not an alternate. While this sounds a bit odd, I don't think I know enough about the organization or its rules to say for certain whether this is correct.

[Richard Brown]

This situation is a bit more complicated. If the alternate had been ineligible for office when he was elected or was ineligible for office now, then this would be easy. This alternate, however, is currently eligible for office and was eligible for office at the time he was elected and when the Point of Order was raised. So there is currently no violation of the bylaws, and I'm not entirely certain that the brief time he was ineligible for office constitutes a continuing breach.

 

I agree.  It seems to me that he was perhaps ineligible for some brief period of time between the time he was elected and the time the point of order was raised, but I'm not entirely certain of that, either.   As to whether that brief period of ineligibility would constitute a continuing breach, I don't know, either.  But, unless they were in a meeting when the period of ineligibility occurred, how could anyone object or raise a point of order at the time? 

 

I also suppose I should not necessarily assume that there ever was a time when the alternate was ineligible for office, since the chair seems to dispute that fact and claims that there, in fact, never was a time (however brief) that the individual in question was not an alternate. While this sounds a bit odd, I don't think I know enough about the organization or its rules to say for certain whether this is correct.

 

I agree that the chair disputes that (the claim that the member was ineligible), but isn't the whole point of appealing a point of order to allow the assembly to decide, regardless of how strongly the chair is convinced he is right.... and even regardless of whether he is right?  Members have the right to appeal a decision of the chair regardless of whether the chair's decision is right or wrong.  The assembly has the final word... right or wrong.

 

It's nice to have a question every now and then that seems to leave us scratching our heads. 

[Josh Martin]

But, unless they were in a meeting when the period of ineligibility occurred, how could anyone object or raise a point of order at the time? 

 

They couldn't.

 

I agree that the chair disputes that (the claim that the member was ineligible), but isn't the whole point of appealing a point of order to allow the assembly to decide, regardless of how strongly the chair is convinced he is right.... and even regardless of whether he is right?  Members have the right to appeal a decision of the chair regardless of whether the chair's decision is right or wrong.  The assembly has the final word... right or wrong.

 

Yes, of course.

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, of course.

 

Then there would be no such thing as a decision that is unappealable.  And we know there are.several.

[Josh Martin]

Then there would be no such thing as a decision that is unappealable.  And we know there are.several.

 

I'm focusing solely on whether this decision is subject to appeal, and I think it clearly is.