Guest O'toole Posted January 19, 2015 at 04:26 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 at 04:26 PM A motion was ruled out of order by the president as it would be a violation of the constitution of the organization.The ruling was challenged and overturned by a vote of the board.The board then proceeded to pass the motion.The president now refuses to implement the motion on the basis that it is a constitutional viloation.Is the motion valid as it was passed by the board even though it violates the constitution?Can the president refuse to implement it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted January 19, 2015 at 04:59 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 at 04:59 PM Is the motion valid as it was passed by the board even though it violates the constitution?If the adopted motion truly violated the Constitution then there would be a continuing breach and technically it would be null and void (RONR p. 251[a]). However, the ruling was Appealed and the Board decided (correctly or incorrectly) there is no constitutional violation and that decision supersedes the President's. So, if there was a true constitutional violation technically the motion would not be valid but procedurally it is valid since the Board decided there was no violation. Can the president refuse to implement it?I suppose he can but he had better be sure he is on solid footing with his belief there was a violation and be prepared to face the music (censure, removal from office, expulsion from membership, etc) if it is decided he exceeded his authority by refusing to implement the motion. His best option might be to get the General Membership involved as soon as possible and hope whatever has been done in the interim can be undone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted January 19, 2015 at 05:54 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 at 05:54 PM His best option might be to get the General Membership involved as soon as possible and hope whatever has been done in the interim can be undone. For which see Official Interpretation 2006-13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 19, 2015 at 07:29 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 at 07:29 PM A motion was ruled out of order by the president as it would be a violation of the constitution of the organization.The ruling was challenged and overturned by a vote of the board.The board then proceeded to pass the motion.The president now refuses to implement the motion on the basis that it is a constitutional viloation.Is the motion valid as it was passed by the board even though it violates the constitution?Can the president refuse to implement it?If the President truly believes that the motion conflicts with the constitution, he can and should, in my opinion, refuse to carry it out, and the society should promptly discipline the board members for attempting to violate the constitution.On the other hand, if the board truly believes the motion does not conflict with the constitution, it can and should instruct someone else to implement the motion and recommend that the society discipline the President for refusing to perform his duties, or discipline him itself if the board has that authority.How this all shakes out in the end will depend on who the society decides is right. Either way, FAQ #20 may be of interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 21, 2015 at 02:00 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 at 02:00 PM While it's certainly true that an organization can and should interpret its own bylaws for itself, I'm less convinced that the board has any such intrinsic right to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted January 21, 2015 at 02:43 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 at 02:43 PM While it's certainly true that an organization can and should interpret its own bylaws for itself, I'm less convinced that the board has any such intrinsic right to do so. But if, at a board meeting, a motion is made that a majority of the board thinks is a violation of the bylaws, surely it has an obligation to reject it as being out of order. Just because the board doesn't have the last word on what the bylaws mean doesn't mean it can't (or even shouldn't) act on its understanding of what the bylaws mean (subject to being overruled by the general membership). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted January 21, 2015 at 02:56 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 at 02:56 PM While it's certainly true that an organization can and should interpret its own bylaws for itself, I'm less convinced that the board has any such intrinsic right to do so.While I think the General Membership itself should settle any questions of bylaw interpretation when practical it would seem to me that the Board needs to have wide latitude to make interpretations for the purposes of their meetings (at least until the GM decides differently). Otherwise whenever a question of interpretation is raised they would have to refer it to the Membership for a decision before proceeding which would allow 2 Board members opposed to whatever is being proposed to bring things to a screeching halt by one raising a Point of Order and the other Appealing the ruling (or just the President could stop it by ruling it violates the bylaws). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.