Travis Posted March 25, 2015 at 10:52 AM Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 at 10:52 AM Our bylaws state that the board along with the personnel committee will create and remove staff positions in accordance to the needs of the organization and the financial means to support them. In the last meeting, the finance committee brought a proposal with their report (of dwindling funds), that a contract position not be renewed. The members could not decide on the matter as they have developed a strong attachment to the person filling the contract position and feel his service is needed. It was moved and passed to send the committee's motion to "not renew the contract" back to committee for further study. If the bylaws state that the board and personnel committee create and remove staff positions, bringing that particular question to the assembly as a finance committee proposal seems (to some) to be circumventing the bylaws. Shouldn't that have just been a decision for the board and personnel committee to make and inform the organization? Does the finance committee have the right to bring it before the assembly that way for a vote without first voting to suspend the bylaws? There is another bylaw that says the assembly is "the supreme authority over all administrative matters of the organization". Does this bylaw imply that any decision made by the board (within the powers given them to do so by the bylaws) can be brought before the assembly and overridden? If that's the case, should the board have acted on the contract position first, and then the assembly responded by overriding their decision at the next meeting? It seems to me that this process could lead to a situation in which all difficult decisions are going to be brought before the whole assembly to decide, even when we have given decision-making power to our boards and committees to decide these issues. 1. Is this proper procedure according to the bylaws stated?2. Should it have been voted on to suspend the bylaws to proceed with the finance committee's proposal?3. Should the chair rule that the bylaws supersede this action and should be dealt with according to the bylaws (board and personnel committee decide it)?4. Does the bylaw "the assembly is the supreme authority over all administrative matters" make it not necessary to suspend the bylaws to proceed with a staff position issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted March 25, 2015 at 12:22 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 at 12:22 PM I'd say #4 is correct. It appears that your assembly may, indeed, override any board administrative decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted March 25, 2015 at 02:40 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 at 02:40 PM I don't have enough information to answer your question. You said, "In the last meeting, the finance committee brought a proposal with their report (of dwindling funds), that a contract position not be renewed. The members could not decide on the matter as they have developed a strong attachment to the person filling the contract position and feel his service is needed. It was moved and passed to send the committee's motion to "not renew the contract" back to committee for further study." What body was meeting? The board or the general membership? Or some other group? Regardless, it was perfectly in order to refer the matter back to the committee for further study, perhaps with instructions to consider certain additional facts. It is not in order to suspend the bylaws in matters such as this, but I fail to see at this point how the bylaws have been violated. I do agree that your bylaws seem to give the general membership the power to overrule or reverse decisions of the board, but having the exact language would help. It is very hard.... perhaps impossible... to answer some of your questions without knowing exactly what the bylaws say on certain issues regarding the powers and duties of the board vs the general membership. Paraphrasing just won't cut it. Even with that language being available, this may boil down to a matter of bylaws interpretation. Doing that is beyond the scope of this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Travis Posted March 26, 2015 at 03:35 AM Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 at 03:35 AM Sorry I didn't give full information. This is really for my own attempt to understand and learn Robert's Rules. Here are the two bylaws I'm referring to: 1. (The Organization's) voting partners shall have supreme authority in the administration of (the organization's) affairs. 2. Staff positions are created and abolished by the Board and Personnel Committee (as described in Article IX); meeting the administrative needs of (the organization), and fitting financially within the approved budget approved by the (the organization's) voting members. The Personnel Committee is responsible for establishing and providing job descriptions (available for review at request); including responsibilities and expectations. So my question was to the correctness of the procedure: The finance committee, (not the personnel committee), brought the motion (as part of their report) before the full assembly of voting members to not renew a contract staff position. If the bylaws state that the Board and Personnel Committee create/abolish staff positions, why wouldn't they do that in this case? Should the chairman have ruled that they were breaking the bylaws by circumventing the Board and Personnel Committee and bringing it to the assembly? Or, does bylaw 1 imply that since it was a quarterly meeting of the whole voting assembly, and they are the "supreme authority," they had the right to entertain such a motion from the finance committee regardless of bylaw 2? And for my own understanding, does that also mean that in any meeting of the full assembly, anyone could make a motion to abolish a staff position for any reason, and it would not be considered improper procedure considering bylaw 2? The organization voted to send it back to the finance committee for further study. It will come back before the assembly in a called meeting. Should it not have been sent to the Board and Personnel Committee? What's the point of having such a bylaw (2) if it doesn't have to be followed, (or suspended) in order to abolish a staff position in this manner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted March 26, 2015 at 12:43 PM Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 at 12:43 PM I'd say that originally this matter should have been brought to the board. Then, however, the assembly could override the board, if it so chooses, based on the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 26, 2015 at 07:15 PM Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 at 07:15 PM If the personnel committee reports to the board, and decides "with" the board (whatever that means), then I think it erred when it brought a motion before the membership. Additionally, a motion not to do something should usually be ruled out of order, as the same result could be achieved by doing nothing. But it seems clear that the membership can override a decision of any subordinate body. And without suspending the bylaws, which is a good thing, because bylaws* typically can't be suspended. __________*Except when they are clearly in the nature of rules of order, which is not the case here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.