EB vote to overrule Member's motion to reconvene

[Guest Jimm]

All,

 

What's your take on this event:

 

 

National organizaiton with members spread out. Constituion also says this:

 

Meetings of the membership of this Union shall be held

at the call of the Executive Board, which may be conducted by

teleconference.

 

The EB voted prior to a general motion to call a membership meeting semi-annually. It called one in March. The meeting was contensious, and the agenda was full. As the meeting got into its 4th or 5th hour, the Members still had unfinished business on the agenda, which was passed at the beginning of the meeting. Someone motioned to recess the meeting until a later time. Debate about that motion ensued, some wanting to finish the business now, others wanting to come back at a later time. The motion was amended, and finally put to the members to recess the membership meeting to reconvene within two weeks. The president adjourned the meeting.

 

In the next two weeks, before the membership meeting was scheduled to reconvene, the EB got together to work on a "resolution" that basically stated that 1) the EB declared the membership meeting that had just occured to have been a complete meeting, that 2) it is not up to the members to call a meeting, so the motion to reconvene is unconstitutional, and 3) the president had the authority to rule any motion to reconvene "out of order".

 

The EB, of course, didn't want another meeting of the membership because many of the motions the members were bringing were not what the EB wanted anyway. For instance, the members brought a motion to create a special committee, but the EB felt it was "unconstitutional" for the members to create a special committee. So, their rationale was that since the remaining motions on the member's agenda were something they felt unconstitutional, that the chair could simply rule it as such and deny the members their motion to reconvene.

 

Its been 2-1/2 years since that meeting, and no other membership meeting ever convened (the EB moved to go into a trusteeship several months later, suspending the authority of the members).

 

Regarding committees in the pertenant parts of the constition, all it says the president appoint all committees not otherwise ordered,and that the EB

shall conduct the affairs of the Union in the intervals between membership meetings.

 

 

 

In your opinion(s), did the EB overstep its authority to by passing a resolution that overruled the member's motion to reconvene their membership meeting?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Jimm

 

 

[Richard Brown]

In your opinion(s), did the EB overstep its authority to by passing a resolution that overruled the member's motion to reconvene their membership meeting?

Yes.  In my opinion, what the assembly actually did (regardless of the terminology that was used) was to adjourn the meeting to a date two weeks away.  You created an adjourned meeting, which is perfectly proper, and is often used when an assembly cannot finish all of its business in one day.  What bothers me, though, is that it doesn't sound like the group set a definite date and time to resume.  Was the adjournment/recess to reconvene at the call of the chair, or what? 

[Guest Jimm]

Richard,

 

The motion was very specific.   The first motion was a motion to adjourn, which failed. indicating the members wished to continue since no date was set to reconvene.  A subsequent was made to continue the meeting at a later date, speicifically, to reconvene on April 18th at 11:00 CST.  That motion passed.

 

The EB subsequently held a meeting and passed a resolution describe above, where they stated they reviewed the constitution and determined that only the EB had a constitutional right to call a meeting, and that the previous meeting was investigated and "deemed" complete by the EB (the EB never met to establish such an investigative committee, btw).

 

The EB clearly passed a resolution that overruled the member's clear motion to continue their meeting on April 18th @ 11:00 CST.

 

Was that EB motion in or out-of-order?

 

regards,

 

Jimm

[Richard Brown]

Was that EB motion in or out-of-order?

 

Yes, in my opinion it was absolutely out of order.  Two reasons;

 

First, the assembly did not "call" a meeting.... special or otherwise.  The assembly set an adjourned meeting, which was perfectly proper based on what I know about your bylaws.  RONR pages 93-94.

"An adjourned meeting is a meeting in continuation of the session of the immediately preceding regular or special meeting. The name adjourned meeting means that the meeting is scheduled for a particular time (and place, if it is not otherwise established) by the assembly's "adjourning to" or "adjourning until" that time and place. If a regular meeting or a special meeting is unable to complete its work, an adjourned meeting can be scheduled for later the same day or some other convenient time before the next regular meeting, by the adoption (as applicable) of a main or a privileged motion to fix the time to which to adjourn, or a main motion to [page 94] adjourn until the specified time (see 21, 22). In such a case, the adjourned meeting is sometimes spoken of as "an adjournment of" the regular or special meeting. This usage should not be confused with the act of adjourning."

 

And on page 94:

"An adjourned meeting takes up its work at the point where it was interrupted in the order of business or in the consideration of the question that was postponed to the adjourned meeting, except that the minutes of the preceding meeting are first read."

 

Second, the Board is subservient to the assembly of the society and cannot countermand decisions of the assembly.  See Official Interpretations no 2006-12 and 2006-13:  http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_12

[Kim Goldsworthy]

… The motion was amended, and finally put to the members to recess the membership meeting to reconvene within two weeks.

The president adjourned the meeting.
… before the membership meeting was scheduled to reconvene, the EB got together to work on a "resolution" that basically stated that

1) the EB declared the membership meeting that had just occured to have been a complete meeting …

kg: This is an error on the part of the board.

One body cannot undo a "adjourned meeting" set by another body.

2) it is not up to the members to call a meeting, so the motion to reconvene is unconstitutional …

kg: This is an error on the part of the board.

One body cannot undo a "adjourned meeting" set by another body.

3) the president had the authority to rule any motion to reconvene "out of order".

kg: This is an error on the part of the board.

One body cannot undo a "adjourned meeting" set by another body.
 
… the members brought a motion to create a special committee, but the EB felt it was "unconstitutional" for the members to create a special committee.

kg: This is an error on the part of the board.

The creating of committees is a right of all deliberative assemblies.

 

***

For what it is worth, you are correct in every point.
Any parliamentarian will support your viewpoint, assuming Robert’s Rules of Order applies and there is no constitution/bylaw rule to say otherwise.