Subverting the Constitution?

[grayduck]

We had membership fees earlier this year. Those fees were done away with. Now there is a motion by a member to reinstate these fees. In our Constitution, it is one of the responsibilities of the Treasurer "to present to the membership for vote at the June general meeting a proposed membership fee for the following year". 

 

Is the motion unconstitutional because it conflicts with our Constitution and how fees are to be determined and "presented" to the membership by the Treasurer? Is the motion "subverting" the role of the Treasurer? The motion does not address the role of the Treasurer.

 

Or is it rather a one-off re-introduction? Which the Treasurer THEN needs to presents to the full membership? That doesn't make sense. The motion specifies that the fees must be implemented by the end of the year. Well ahead of the June GM next year, of course.

 

If I rule it is constitutional, and it passes, it forces members to pay the fees basically immediately. I have no opinion on this, of course, I'm happy to pay the fee, but there is enormous pushback, particularly for me to declare it unconstitutional.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

How were the fees done away with?

[Curiosulus]

The question is whether your bylaws restrict the enactment of fees to the Treasurer-June process. It's impossible to tell from a single quoted phrase. Ordinarily, an assembly can change its mind by adopting a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (RONR[11th ed.], p. 305-310).

[Josh Martin]

We had membership fees earlier this year. Those fees were done away with. Now there is a motion by a member to reinstate these fees.

The following answer assumes that the fees were "done away with" in accordance with your rules. If they were not, then the fees should be reinstated immediately, without any need for a motion to do so.

In our Constitution, it is one of the responsibilities of the Treasurer "to present to the membership for vote at the June general meeting a proposed membership fee for the following year".

Is the motion unconstitutional because it conflicts with our Constitution and how fees are to be determined and "presented" to the membership by the Treasurer? Is the motion "subverting" the role of the Treasurer? The motion does not address the role of the Treasurer.

Or is it rather a one-off re-introduction? Which the Treasurer THEN needs to presents to the full membership? That doesn't make sense. The motion specifies that the fees must be implemented by the end of the year. Well ahead of the June GM next year, of course.

It will be up to the organization to interpret its own Constitution (or mostly up to you, if I recall previous threads about this organization correctly). See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation. I can see reasonable arguments for both sides, although in my view, this has more to do with the timing of the motion than with "subverting" the role of the Treasurer. Since the Treasurer merely proposes a fee, the membership could always adopt a different fee.

If the motion is indeed in conflict with the Constitution, it would be necessary to amend the Constitution before making this motion.

[grayduck]

That quoted phrase referring to the Treasurer is the only reference we currently have in our Constitution to a membership fee. We used to have the following line in Section I:

 

          "...subject to payment of an annual membership fee to be determined by a vote at the general meeting".

 

There was a simple motion earlier in the year to remove that line. It was passed. Then there were no fees. The Treasurer line was not removed.

 

Now the motion is to re-insert that same line back into the Constitution (with the addition of Annual) so we can have fees again. The second part of the motion specifies the cost and timeframe for re-enacting the fees, which is next month and without the Treasurers input, although the fee would be the same as it was before. So there are two steps in the current motion: a constitutional change and a motion of action. Should this motion be divided?

 

Most seriously, was that previous motion done incorrectly because it forgot to remove the line about the treasurer from the Constitution? Was that seriously such a significant enough error that, as Josh said, we need  to immediately return to the previous rule and reinstate the fee NOW? Wow! What a scandal! I'll be ripped apart. Ahhhh, but wait... I just read that the Treasurer seconded that motion. So he, as Treasurer, was effectively changing the fee to ZERO in the middle of the year. He is no longer treasurer. So I guess that, if they should have removed that line then, that would only allow for a new motion to Amend Something Already Adopted, correct?

 

I thought that since a membership had voted something through, i.e. removing that line, it would stand, even if that vote neglected to remove a relevant line somewhere else, i.e. too late. And that removing/cleaning up that line could be considered "housekeeping". Or even amend the deletion of that line to the current motion.

 

If none of this is true, and I have to view this motion as if it were a new attempt, and I don't deny it as a conflict with the role of the treasurer, I don't understand your point about timing. Do you mean that we can't adopt a fee now but wait until the AGM when the Treasurer proposes a fee and someone attempts to modify that fee? Why not now by the membership? Again, if nothing above is true.

 

Yes, I know, we have an absurd process, but I'll interpret your answers for my situation.

[Josh Martin]

Now the motion is to re-insert that same line back into the Constitution (with the addition of Annual) so we can have fees again. The second part of the motion specifies the cost and timeframe for re-enacting the fees, which is next month and without the Treasurers input, although the fee would be the same as it was before. So there are two steps in the current motion: a constitutional change and a motion of action. Should this motion be divided?

Yes.

 

Most seriously, was that previous motion done incorrectly because it forgot to remove the line about the treasurer from the Constitution? Was that seriously such a significant enough error that, as Josh said, we need  to immediately return to the previous rule and reinstate the fee NOW? Wow! What a scandal! I'll be ripped apart. Ahhhh, but wait... I just read that the Treasurer seconded that motion. So he, as Treasurer, was effectively changing the fee to ZERO in the middle of the year. He is no longer treasurer. So I guess that, if they should have removed that line then, that would only allow for a new motion to Amend Something Already Adopted, correct?

I thought that since a membership had voted something through, i.e. removing that line, it would stand, even if that vote neglected to remove a relevant line somewhere else, i.e. too late. And that removing/cleaning up that line could be considered "housekeeping". Or even amend the deletion of that line to the current motion.

I was not by any means suggesting that the failure to remove the line about the Treasurer proposing a fee would be sufficient to invalidate the amendment. If there is no longer any provision for fees, the line about the Treasurer proposing a fee doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it does not invalidate the amendment.

 

If none of this is true, and I have to view this motion as if it were a new attempt, and I don't deny it as a conflict with the role of the treasurer, I don't understand your point about timing. Do you mean that we can't adopt a fee now but wait until the AGM when the Treasurer proposes a fee and someone attempts to modify that fee? Why not now by the membership? Again, if nothing above is true.

Yes, I think that would be one reasonable interpretation of the rule. It may be that the intent was that the fee could only be set at the June meeting (based on the wording of the other section, it sounds like these rules were written back when you actually voted on things at meetings), in order to prevent the fee from fluctuating throughout the year.

This is by no means the only reasonable interpretation of the rule, and I am not necessarily advocating it. It's equally possible that the Treasurer was expected to make a proposal in June, and the members were free to approve, reject, or modify this proposal, but the members were also free to amend the fees throughout the year.

[grayduck]

So, to summarize, in your opinion:

 

1. I should definitely divide the motion

 

2. The earlier amendment to remove the line from the constitution remains valid, regardless

     of forgetting the line about the treasurer, i.e. the current system of no fees is valid.

 

3. There are two interpretations of timing:

     a. It is the intent of the Constitution that it is the sole responsibility of the treasure to propose

         fee changes at the AGM, not throughout the year, so the call for action in this motion

         violates that intent and must be denied. Members cannot subvert the role of the treasurer.

     b. Members can move to change fees throughout the year.

 

Is that summary correct?

 

Number 3 is my problem. Which one?

[grayduck]

Putting all of this together: If the motion is divided, the amendment to the constitution (which seems totally fine) will come to the membership first (part one). If that passes, the line about the treasurer's role comes back into play (it was, as you say, pointless without a fee). Your point #3 then also comes into play regarding part two. Then my question about 3a or 3b must be considered.

 

I think part one would pass, i.e. the change to the constitution. Part two is highly contentious.

 

If we/I choose 3a,  we/I will need to withdraw part two of the newly divided motion from the assembly (it has already been "stated" in our sytem) as subverting the intent of the constitution (Point of Order) which has just come back into action.

 

What if part one does not pass? Then point two becomes irrelevant, right? No fees in the Constitution.

[Josh Martin]

Is that summary correct?

 

I think so. I still think the key issue is timing rather than the role of the Treasurer, but whatever. If someone's role is simply to propose something, that doesn't mean a whole lot, in my opinion. A proposal is just a suggestion, which might or might not be adopted. As a result, other people making competing proposals doesn't seem like an issue to me.

 

Number 3 is my problem. Which one?

 

Yep, that is your problem.

 

Putting all of this together: If the motion is divided, the amendment to the constitution (which seems totally fine) will come to the membership first (part one). If that passes, the line about the treasurer's role comes back into play (it was, as you say, pointless without a fee). Your point #3 then also comes into play regarding part two. Then my question about 3a or 3b must be considered.

 

I think part one would pass, i.e. the change to the constitution. Part two is highly contentious.

 

If we/I choose 3a,  we/I will need to withdraw part two of the newly divided motion from the assembly (it has already been "stated" in our sytem) as subverting the intent of the constitution (Point of Order) which has just come back into action.

 

What if part one does not pass? Then point two becomes irrelevant, right? No fees in the Constitution.

 

This all sounds accurate, except "withdraw" is not really the correct terminology, as this refers to the motion maker voluntarily withdrawing the motion. The proper course of action is to rule the motion out of order, if it does in fact conflict with the Constitution.

 

It would also seem logical for the member who is proposing the amendment to the Constitution to also move to amend the part about the Treasurer. If that rule is removed, then this will be a moot point.

[grayduck]

I don't understand your last point. What would be moot? Why would they want to remove the line about the treasurer?

[Josh Martin]

I don't understand your last point. What would be moot? Why would they want to remove the line about the treasurer?

 

The entire issue being discussed here is whether the member's proposal to reinstitute the fees, immediately and with no input from the Treasurer, conflicts with the language in the Constitution regarding the Treasurer proposing the fee at the June meeting. If that language no longer exists, then there is no possibility of a conflict. Therefore, it would seem logical for that member to seek to remove that language.

[grayduck]

Oh. I see. But the other motions come first. So while that is logical, I still need to know if I can call part two out of order. If I do, he can make that motion later to remove that line and then make the fee motion again, as you suggest. So I'm still at question 3.

[Josh Martin]

Oh. I see. But the other motions come first. So while that is logical, I still need to know if I can call part two out of order. If I do, he can make that motion later to remove that line and then make the fee motion again, as you suggest. So I'm still at question 3.

 

But we already answered that question a while ago, at least so far as this forum is concerned. "It will be up to the organization to interpret its own Constitution (or mostly up to you, if I recall previous threads about this organization correctly). See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation."

 

Did you hope we would forget that we don't interpret bylaws here if you stuck around long enough?

[grayduck]

Hahaha. No. I didn't forget. I was still hoping someone might give me an answer that would negate my need to do the interpretation myself.

But you have been veeeerrrryy helpful. Thanks.

[Gary Novosielski]

So, to summarize, in your opinion:

 

1. I should definitely divide the motion

 

2. The earlier amendment to remove the line from the constitution remains valid, regardless

     of forgetting the line about the treasurer, i.e. the current system of no fees is valid.

 

3. There are two interpretations of timing:

     a. It is the intent of the Constitution that it is the sole responsibility of the treasure to propose

         fee changes at the AGM, not throughout the year, so the call for action in this motion

         violates that intent and must be denied. Members cannot subvert the role of the treasurer.

     b. Members can move to change fees throughout the year.

 

Is that summary correct?

 

Number 3 is my problem. Which one?

 

I'm a a little confused about removing the line from the Constitution on a "simple motion".   Does that conform with the procedure for constitutional amendments in your organization?   If not, the line is still there.

[grayduck]

Yes, that's how they do it.

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, that's how they do it.

 

So you've said.  My concern is, though, are they doing it right?  That is, are they following the procedure (presumably) set forth in the constitution for its own amendment? 

 

Adopting a constitutional amendment on an ordinary main motion, without any special vote threshold or prior notice requirements would be a very unusual provision.