grayduck Posted September 7, 2015 at 03:17 PM Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 at 03:17 PM I am the Motions and Elections Officer of our association. When a member wants to make a motion, they must submit it to me to check if it is constitutional or, if not specified in the constitution, in line with RONR. I therefore have the right to decide if a motion goes forward to the membership or not. Now I have a motion before me to remove an officer (written into our constitution), but the motion is poorly worded, filled with unprovable, possibly false accusations, judgmental and harsh statements about what his accusations mean to the greater association, items about slander against another member and potential libellous language, etc. According to RONR, is there a way I can table/postpone his motion until the next meeting until he writes an accurate, concise motion without all his biased, opinionated ramblings? Can I deny the motion if he never makes appropriate changes? What would be the procedure for me to follow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted September 7, 2015 at 03:23 PM Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 at 03:23 PM I know he will come at me guns blazing if I withhold it or delay it from consideration because of its aggressive content (no swearing present). Also, if he does become reasonable and willing to talk, how much am I allowed to give him suggestions on how to modify it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted September 7, 2015 at 03:29 PM Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 at 03:29 PM As far as RONR is concerned, you have absolutely no right to do any of these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted September 7, 2015 at 04:10 PM Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 at 04:10 PM Wow! That means I'll have to post a garbled, aggressive mess to the record and membership. Ouch. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 7, 2015 at 04:48 PM Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 at 04:48 PM Wow! That means I'll have to post a garbled, aggressive mess to the record and membership. Ouch. Thanks. I don't think that's quite what Mr. Honemann said, or what he meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted September 7, 2015 at 06:55 PM Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 at 06:55 PM If you do have any "right" to hold up the motion or require clarifications or better wording, such rights would have to be spelled out in your bylaws, presumably in the section that establishes the position you hold.When the motion is actually made (in "improved" form or not) any member can "Object to the Consideration" (p. 267) if they do it right away, or move to postpone (any time) of just contribute to the vote to defeat the motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted September 7, 2015 at 07:07 PM Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 at 07:07 PM . . . if he does become reasonable and willing to talk, how much am I allowed to give him suggestions on how to modify it? What do you think prevents you from giving him all the help he needs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 7, 2015 at 10:12 PM Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 at 10:12 PM From shlinder's previous discussion thread ("... /26275-can-i-remove-a-newly-elected-ineffectivecorrupt-executive/", most recently -- and, let's hope, finally -- posted to yesterday, by E. Guest, and thankfully on the General Discussion forum), it seems to me (almost interpreting bylaws) that the organization's bylaws pretty much define, or describe, his job (per Post 6 on that thread) as the beginning of the duty of the chair to process each proposed motion, by either determining that it is in order (the default, one hopes again) or determining that it isn't (p. 449 - 450, item #4 and maybe #5). Pretty much routinely, he would pass motons on unless there was a good reason not to. He mistakenly thought he needs to investigate any charges and determine that they are valid before handing a proposed motion on the the membership meeting, or determine that the charges are without foundation, and therefore to withhold the motion from the membership. (IIRC, Josh Martin and shlinder's wife disabused him of this impression. And that's what I think Mr. Honemann meant when he pointed out the distinction between whether it is in order to raise a pont of order, and whether the point is well taken.) However, that's not the way much of the membership sees it, as shlinder says later: "For now, as understood by members in our organization about my role in all of this per our constitution, I am the frontline judge and jury of how things should proceed" (Post 26), which does look like a more overarching responsibility. Now a third question has arisen, whether the Motions Officer can insist that the mover of a motion tinker with the motion to the Officer's satisfaction before the officer will adjudge the motion admissible. The only specific description of a motion that would be out of order that I can see is on p. 657 - 658, which happens to look like what shlinder is looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted September 10, 2015 at 09:25 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 at 09:25 PM . . . if he does become reasonable and willing to talk, how much am I allowed to give him suggestions on how to modify it? RONR does say that the presiding officer may help a member with the proper wording of motion (page 34). That section seems intended to cover the situation where a member is trying to make a motion during a meeting. In this case, you aren't the presiding officer and the motion is apparently being submitted in writing in advance of a meeting. I imagine that you or any other member could offer to help him with the wording of his motion outside of a meeting, or maybe even in a meeting if it can be done without disturbing the assembly or interrupting the proceedings, but any "authority" you have to insist on changes would have to come from your organization's own rules or bylaws.... as others have stated. I see no limit to the advice/help you can give him if he is willing to listen, other than your own patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted September 16, 2015 at 12:42 AM Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 at 12:42 AM Thank you, Nancy for giving me the perfect answer to question #3. Now for hopefully my very last, potentially most stupid question: #4: is there any obligation for a member to keep his motion private (and not do a mass mailing to the membership) before it is officially submitted and then stated by the Chairman (MEO) for official pre-meeting discussion on a forum before a general assembly? Common sense seems to say "no; he can publicize whatever he wants. But this was such an ugly motion (needs a trial). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 16, 2015 at 02:26 AM Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 at 02:26 AM ... #4: is there any obligation for a member to keep his motion private (and not do a mass mailing to the membership) before it is officially submitted and then stated by the Chairman (MEO) for official pre-meeting discussion on a forum before a general assembly? Not as far as Robert's Rules is concerned. For that matter, it might be best to get a lot of hashing and wrangling out of the way before the meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 16, 2015 at 02:28 AM Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 at 02:28 AM ... #4: is there any obligation for a member to keep his motion private (and not do a mass mailing to the membership) before it is officially submitted and then stated by the Chairman (MEO) for official pre-meeting discussion on a forum before a general assembly? Not as far as Robert's Rules is concerned. For that matter, it might be best to get a lot of hashing and wrangling out of the way before the meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 16, 2015 at 02:29 AM Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 at 02:29 AM (Nuts. I don't mean it any more when I say it twice.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted September 16, 2015 at 02:41 AM Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 at 02:41 AM Fantastic. Thank you Nancy. I'm done for the foreseeable future. Unless anyone else wants to pipe in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted September 16, 2015 at 04:36 AM Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 at 04:36 AM Fantastic. Thank you Nancy. I'm done for the foreseeable future. Unless anyone else wants to pipe in...Nah. Nancy had a moment of lucidity and got it right in less than 4,379 words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.