What are the limits of the assembly?

[Travis]

Our bylaws clearly state that the personnel committee is responsible for hiring and dismissing staff.

Another bylaw states that "The assembly has supreme authority over all administrative matters."

 

In a recent assembly meeting, a motion was made and seconded from the floor that a certain staff person be dismissed. The chairman ruled the motion out of order stating it conflicted with the bylaws indicating that the personnel committee was charged with that role and that the assembly didn't have the power to over-step the bylaws. There was a discussion as to whether the assembly has that right or not, given that another bylaw says it has "supreme authority over all administrative matters."

 

Another member responded that if the motion wasn't allowed, he would make a motion to amend the budget, cutting funding to that particular position. The chair ruled that such a motion would be out of order. Since it is the assembly that approves the budget, doesn't it also have the right to amend it?

 

What would a parliamentarian have ruled?

[jstackpo]

Based (ONLY) on what you wrote, it looks to me that the "cut-the-budget" motion was proper.  Did someone appeal the ruling of the chair?  If there is an employment contract in place, things might not be so simple.

 

The first problem, about conflicting responsibilities, is a matter of bylaws interpretation and is up to your association to figure out.  See p. 588 for starters.

[Chris Harrison]

Regarding the dismissal of the staff member a member could have Appealed the ruling that the motion was out of order and put the decision in the assembly's hands (RONR pp. 255-260).  If the Chair had ruled the motion to amend the budget out of order that ruling could have been Appealed.

[Edgar Guest]

What would a parliamentarian have ruled?

 

Parliamentarians don't rule.

[Richard Brown]

I agree with all of the previous answers but would add that based on what we have been told, and the "supreme authority" language, I personally am of the opinion that the assembly does have the right to terminate personnel.  However, not being a member, I do not have a vote on this issue.  It is for your organization to interpret its own bylaws.

[jstackpo]

Just to offer a counter argument....

 

The "supreme authority" membership chose to delegate a portion of that authority by adopting the bylaw giving the personnel committee the hire/fire authority.   If the membership wants the authority back it will have to amend the bylaws first.

[Josh Martin]

Our bylaws clearly state that the personnel committee is responsible for hiring and dismissing staff.

Another bylaw states that "The assembly has supreme authority over all administrative matters."

 

In a recent assembly meeting, a motion was made and seconded from the floor that a certain staff person be dismissed. The chairman ruled the motion out of order stating it conflicted with the bylaws indicating that the personnel committee was charged with that role and that the assembly didn't have the power to over-step the bylaws. There was a discussion as to whether the assembly has that right or not, given that another bylaw says it has "supreme authority over all administrative matters."

 

Another member responded that if the motion wasn't allowed, he would make a motion to amend the budget, cutting funding to that particular position. The chair ruled that such a motion would be out of order. Since it is the assembly that approves the budget, doesn't it also have the right to amend it?

 

As previously noted, it is ultimately up to the assembly to interpret its own bylaws. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation. Based upon the facts provided, I can see reasonable arguments for either interpretation.

 

What would a parliamentarian have ruled?

 

If the parliamentarian was any good, he would have provided advice to the chair rather than making a ruling himself, since he would know that he doesn't have the authority to make rulings. I can't say what advice the parliamentarian would have provided, because if he was any good, he would have been certain to review the organization's rules in their entirety, something which is well beyond the scope of this forum. The purpose of this forum is to provide advice on the application of RONR, not the customized rules in a particular organization's bylaws.

 

If you wish to seek out a professional parliamentarian who can sit down with your organization and provide such a service, search for the National Association of Parliamentarians or the American Institute of Parliamentarians. Both organizations provide referrals.

 

I agree with all of the previous answers but would add that based on what we have been told, and the "supreme authority" language, I personally am of the opinion that the assembly does have the right to terminate personnel.  However, not being a member, I do not have a vote on this issue.  It is for your organization to interpret its own bylaws.

 

I can see that the "supreme authority" clause may point toward the membership having the authority to adopt the motions in question, but the "specific trumps general" principle of interpretation would point toward the membership not having the authority to adopt the motions in question (at least not the first one). The motion to amend the budget is trickier. It technically does not dismiss the staff member, but it has essentially the same effect.