Guest KRSA1 Posted March 30, 2015 at 10:59 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 at 10:59 PM Our body passed a motion last year to change the officer duties (changes to our constitution). It was approved to go in effect this year. A few months ago, an ad hoc committee decided procedure was not followed and ruled the motion invalid, based on notice given and number of votes. However, it was declared to have passed and was accepted in the minutes last year. Is it still in place? (we are now reviewing our constitution to better define these terms, but that is not of help at the moment) Now there is a new motion on the table which was given proper notice and is the same as the one before - but only now did anyone realize that the motion had an internal contradiction (asisgning the same power to two officers, although it is clear in the discussion from the minutes to whom it was to be assigned), and reference to the wrong office (again, clear form discussion what was intended). Ideally, we need a way to adopt the correct language and move on - with minimal meetings. How can we get out of this mess? Help! Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted March 30, 2015 at 11:15 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 at 11:15 PM Is it still in place? Probably. It seems unlikely that this ad hoc committee would have the authority to rule invalid a motion adopted by the general membership (in this case, an amendment of the constitution).. So you might not need to adopt this new motion. What you might want to do is correct the originally adopted motion (by, once again, amending your constitution). Not that I have much confidence that I know what's going on here. So stay tuned. As for the minutes, they shouldn't include any discussion at all (the minutes record what was done, not what was said). And the act of approving minutes merely indicates that they're an accurate record of what happened, not that what happened was proper or was even what was intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 30, 2015 at 11:39 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 at 11:39 PM So do we need to start over with a new amendment, or is there some nice shortcut we can take to make the language match the intention? And since we do have this new motion on the floor (ugh, I know, very messy), woud lit be easier to amend it for the proper lanaguage? And if so, how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted March 30, 2015 at 11:43 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 at 11:43 PM So do we need to start over with a new amendment, or is there some nice shortcut we can take to make the language match the intention?If you want to change something in your constitution you'll need to follow the usual amendment process. There is no shortcut. And since we do have this new motion on the floor (ugh, I know, very messy), would it be easier to amend it for the proper language? And if so, how? Well, I'm not sure that this new motion is currently "on the floor" (assuming you're not currently at a meeting). But yes, it's easier to amend a pending motion than it is to amend a motion that's been adopted. Not that I think this will help in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 30, 2015 at 11:55 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 at 11:55 PM thank you for all your help! So you think the prior motion still stands, even though there was not a quorom (but the president at the time declared it approved, and no one brought up any issues til this ad hoc committee looked at it 9 months later)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted March 31, 2015 at 12:01 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 12:01 AM So you think the prior motion still stands, even though there was not a quorum (but the president at the time declared it approved, and no one brought up any issues til this ad hoc committee looked at it 9 months later)? There was no quorum? If there's proof of this then the adopted motion is null and void. And if proper notice wasn't given (I think I missed this important fact on the first reading), the adopted motion is null and void. Though I still doubt that the ad hoc committee is authorized to make this ruling. A point of order should be raised at the next meeting of the general membership. But it's past my bedtime so stay tuned for the night crew (and/or the morning crew). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 31, 2015 at 12:08 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 12:08 AM Is the following supported under this scenario and ROR? Ask for an up or down vote on the motion at hand, which in a sense is also a vote on the prior motion. That motion has now been properly vetted, and if it now passes with a 2/3 vote, then there can be no question as to its constitutionality, although there will be work to do to properly implement it Explain that an up vote means support of the officer change as written, and acknowledgment that we will require quick work today for how to fix the language so it is workable, possibly using what has gotten posted since the last meeting, and a discussion as to whether elections should be postponed / new nominations accepted. However, this should be done by next meeting. A down vote means the person is in acceptance that the prior motion does not bind this group, and also does not accept the current motion, so a down vote is to keep the current officer roles in place unless and until a brand new motion arises at a later date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 31, 2015 at 12:10 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 12:10 AM I really appreciate the help. If anyone can post specific ROR sections that apply to help clean up this mess (I have walked into this aftermath and am at a loss on how to get the body back on track to do business instead of sink further into name calling), you have my gratitude!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 31, 2015 at 12:12 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 12:12 AM Oh, and part of the mess is that quorom is not well defined in our constitution (yet) and neoither is notice. While the ad hoc committee found these were not present, not everyone agrees. Looking forwrad to checking in tomorrow to find our solution! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 31, 2015 at 12:13 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 12:13 AM Oh, and part of the mess is that quorom is not well defined in our constitution (yet) and neoither is notice. While the ad hoc committee found these were not present, not everyone agrees. Looking forwrad to checking in tomorrow to find our solution! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 31, 2015 at 12:31 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 12:31 AM Our body passed a motion last year to change the officer duties (changes to our constitution). It was approved to go in effect this year. A few months ago, an ad hoc committee decided procedure was not followed and ruled the motion invalid, based on notice given and number of votes. However, it was declared to have passed and was accepted in the minutes last year. Is it still in place? (we are now reviewing our constitution to better define these terms, but that is not of help at the moment) Most likely, the motion is still in effect for now. It is extremely unlikely that an ad hoc committee has the authority to declare an action of the general membership invalid. RONR certainly does not grant an ad hoc committee such authority. It may well be that the ad hoc committee is correct, but for now, the motion remains in effect. The proper course of action to declare this motion invalid would be through a Point of Order, and possibly an Appeal, at a meeting of the general membership. Now there is a new motion on the table which was given proper notice and is the same as the one before - but only now did anyone realize that the motion had an internal contradiction (asisgning the same power to two officers, although it is clear in the discussion from the minutes to whom it was to be assigned), and reference to the wrong office (again, clear form discussion what was intended). Ideally, we need a way to adopt the correct language and move on - with minimal meetings. How can we get out of this mess? Assuming that the original motion is ultimately found to be null and void, this new motion can be corrected by means of a motion to Amend. I'd say clearing up a contradiction is likely within the scope of notice. thank you for all your help! So you think the prior motion still stands, even though there was not a quorom (but the president at the time declared it approved, and no one brought up any issues til this ad hoc committee looked at it 9 months later)? It stands for now. If it is correct that a quorum was not present at the time of the vote, the motion is null and void. This is one of several violations that are so severe that they constitute a "continuing breach," so there is no time limit on raising a Point of Order. I would note, however, that "clear and convincing proof" of the lack of quorum is required to raise a Point of Order about this issue after the fact. If proper notice was not given, this is likewise a continuing breach, and the motion is null and void. An ad hoc committee, however, doesn't get to make these decisions (unless your bylaws so provide, which seems highly unlikely). The appropriate course of action is for someone to raise a Point of Order at a meeting of the general membership, followed by an Appeal if necessary. The President will make the initial ruling, and the final decision is in the hands of the assembly. Is the following supported under this scenario and ROR?Ask for an up or down vote on the motion at hand, which in a sense is also a vote on the prior motion. That motion has now been properly vetted, and if it now passes with a 2/3 vote, then there can be no question as to its constitutionality, although there will be work to do to properly implement it Explain that an up vote means support of the officer change as written, and acknowledgment that we will require quick work today for how to fix the language so it is workable, possibly using what has gotten posted since the last meeting, and a discussion as to whether elections should be postponed / new nominations accepted. However, this should be done by next meeting. A down vote means the person is in acceptance that the prior motion does not bind this group, and also does not accept the current motion, so a down vote is to keep the current officer roles in place unless and until a brand new motion arises at a later date. No. As previously noted, the proper course of action is for someone to raise a Point of Order, followed by an Appeal if necessary. The question before the assembly at this time (if it goes to an Appeal) is solely on whether the previous motion is valid, and not whether members personally support the previous motion or the current motion. If it is determined that the previous motion is valid, then the current motion will become moot, and the chair should rule it out of order. If it is determined that the previous motion is invalid, then the assembly can proceed to consider the current motion. The question before the assembly will then be whether they approve of the current motion. Oh, and part of the mess is that quorom is not well defined in our constitution (yet) and neoither is notice. While the ad hoc committee found these were not present, not everyone agrees. Looking forwrad to checking in tomorrow to find our solution! It is ultimately up to the organization to interpret its own rules. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 31, 2015 at 12:10 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 12:10 PM thank you for all your help! So you think the prior motion still stands, even though there was not a quorom (but the president at the time declared it approved, and no one brought up any issues til this ad hoc committee looked at it 9 months later)? If there was no quorum, and there is clear and convincing proof of that, the adoption of the amendment can be declared null and void, upon a point of order that a quorum was not present. The chair should rule on this point, subject to appeal to the assembly. It is unlikely that some ad-hoc committee can declare anything noteworthy at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 31, 2015 at 04:07 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 04:07 PM Thank you for your help. Would you consider the following to be a correct summary then and plan of action (sorry for the length)? I think we need to be very careful here on process. I have searched about the past motion, and while an ad hoc committee can make a recommendation, they cannot invalidate a motion on their own. There needs to be clear and convincing proof of a severe violation (no notice or no quorum), then a point of order raised to call to question the validity of the prior motion. As it currently stands, last year’s motion is still in play – the minutes do not show there ever being a vote on the constitutional committee’s recommendation. Also, there does not appear to be “clear and convincing evidence” that notice was not given since it was given in the manner set by precedent and the motion was discussed at two meetings. The motions and minutes are messy, but it appears the motion was introduced and initially approved on 2-25, then followed on 3-18 (thus meeting the notice) with a motion to “pass the officer duties document with Price’s changes” and passed 24 Y, 3 N, 2 A. Our current by-laws state that the by-laws may be amended if approved by 2/3 of votes cast; our constitution states that amendments may be approved by 2/3 vote of the Executive Council, a quorum being present (Art IX); while a quorum is defined as a majority of the members (Art V, sec D). There is no issue with changing the by-laws. There is a question of interpretation for the amending the constitution, because it is not clear if it should be 2/3 of those present, with at least a majority of members present (in which case, it was passed correctly); or if amendment approval requires 2/3 of the entire Executive Council (and since there are 37 seats listed on the website, 2/3 may have not been met, but there is also a question if some of those seats are vacant, and if so, what the actual count is). I looked to precedent to see how this was done previously. In 2010, there were changes made to the constitution/by-laws. In the 2-23-2010 meeting, the motion to accept the changes passed 29-0-0. They were then sent out (and here it is unclear how, but I think this was just to the representatives to review and share), a minor change made at the next meeting, and then a motion was made to approve all proposed and amended changes. The motion passed 25-0-0. It appears that the previous approach was to go with at 2/3 of those present, since there was no mention to an overall count of the Executive Council. However, I am also unsure what the size of the constituent list was at the time and do not know how to dig that up. This also matches last year’s initial approval at the 2-25 meeting and the follow up at the 3-18 meeting. All of this needs to be clarified for future meetings, but it appears the motion was passed in good faith last year using the procedures/precedents that had been in place. However, if you feel that it is invalid because of the quorum or notice issue, then there needs to be a point of order called and a vote based on the above evidence (and whatever else may be applicable that I might have missed). See sections 23 and 24. First, I think the above needs to be discussed. You may want to move this to the beginning of the agenda so that it can be given enough time (and hopefully closed today). I think the way to lay it out is as an honest mistake concerning the authority of the committee, and after presenting all evidence, ask the body if anyone wants to call a point of order on the validity of last year’s motion. If they do, then either it is invalidated or not. If it is invalidated, then you move on to the new motion. I would suggest pointing out the inconsistencies in the language, and asking for a motion to amend. Clearing up a contradiction previously discussed is considered within the scope of notice, so after amending, can vote on new motion. If it passes, I would then discuss with the body whether there should be additional time for nominations and a delay to the elections, or if they wish to proceed with given nominations. If it fails, then can move on with elections as planned. If no one raises a point or order, then it should be said out loud the body has thus considered the evidence and respects the validity of the prior motion, hence the new motion raising the same issue should be withdrawn and ask someone to make a motion to do so. And then there still needs to be a motion to amend to correct the language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:09 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:09 PM If no one raises a point or order, then it should be said out loud the body has thus considered the evidence and respects the validity of the prior motion, hence the new motion raising the same issue should be withdrawn and ask someone to make a motion to do so. And then there still needs to be a motion to amend to correct the language.No. If no one raises a Point of Order, the body has not considered anything. There is no need to announce anything.As for the second part, am I correct to understand that the previously adopted motion also has a problem with the language? If this is the case, a new motion to amend the bylaws, subject to any notice requirements, will be necessary. If the motion is deemed to be valid, then it is already a part of the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:19 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:19 PM Our current by-laws state that the by-laws may be amended if approved by 2/3 of votes cast; our constitution states that amendments may be approved by 2/3 vote of the Executive Council, a quorum being present (Art IX); while a quorum is defined as a majority of the members (Art V, sec D). There is no issue with changing the by-laws. There is a question of interpretation for the amending the constitution, because it is not clear if it should be 2/3 of those present, with at least a majority of members present (in which case, it was passed correctly); or if amendment approval requires 2/3 of the entire Executive Council (and since there are 37 seats listed on the website, 2/3 may have not been met, but there is also a question if some of those seats are vacant, and if so, what the actual count is). A two-thirds vote, by definition, is the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the members present and voting. Thus, a vote of 1-0, with all other present members abstaining, constitutes a two-thirds vote. A simple way of determining whether a two-thirds vote was achieved is to see whether there are at least twice as many "yes" votes as "no" votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:24 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:24 PM A two-thirds vote, by definition, is the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the members present and voting. Thus, a vote of 1-0, with all other present members abstaining, constitutes a two-thirds vote. A simple way of determining whether a two-thirds vote was achieved is to see whether there are at least twice as many "yes" votes as "no" votes.Well, I think the issue is whether the statement "2/3 vote of the Executive Council" is intended to mean that a 2/3 vote of the entire membership of the council is required (which appears to be the argument of the ad hoc committee) or whether it is simply intended to mean a 2/3 vote, and the phrase "of the Executive Council" is just intended to clarify which body is voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:34 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 at 06:34 PM Well, I think the issue is whether the statement "2/3 vote of the Executive Council" is intended to mean that a 2/3 vote of the entire membership of the council is required (which appears to be the argument of the ad hoc committee) or whether it is simply intended to mean a 2/3 vote, and the phrase "of the Executive Council" is just intended to clarify which body is voting. I'm going with Door #2. I'd go with Door #1 if it said something like, "the vote of 2/3 of the executive council". But as we like to say here on the world's premier internet parliamentary forum, my vote doesn't count. Speaking of which, is it time to put a BOLO out on Mr. Tesser? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.