Manner of Voting

[TVS]

President of our organization sent a notice for a special Board meeting to approve the Committee Chair who will work with him for the Calendar year..   Usually in this process, the President will present the list of committee chairs to the Trustees and the trustees approve or reject with a simple majority..  .

During this meeting, one trustee presented a written and duly seconded motion to prohibiting the spouses of the executive committee members to chair any committee. (This was not pre-circulated). Motions passed with 6 in favour, 4 against and 2 abstain and 4 absent.

Does this motion require 2/3rd Vote as it was not part of the agenda and it was not pre-circulated.   Does it also violate any members right as our constitution states that "Any Chairperson of the committee shall be the member of the organization in good standing.

[Gary c Tesser]

21 minutes ago, trmarwaha said:

to prohibiting the spouses of the executive committee members to chair any committee.

This sounds to me like a standing rule (VerStandische rule, in German ... maybe), which, as far as Robert's Rules of Order is concerned, can be adopted with a plain majority vote, with no previous notice required.

21 minutes ago, trmarwaha said:

Does this motion require 2/3rd Vote as it was not part of the agenda and it was not pre-circulated.

Robert's Rules doesn't require that a motion introduced as new business be on an agenda (see FAQ #14 or so ... gimme a minute, I'll dig up the link) or be pre-circulated.  Your organization's own rules might have such requirements, but we First Responders, here on The World's Premiere Internet Parliamentary Forum, can't know that, so you and your fellow members will have to check that for yourselves.  (Or you can hire a parliamentarian, or an aspiring parliamentarian like me, to dig up the information for you.  Ten or fifteen years ago, JJ or someone told me he charges $100 an hour, plus expenses, and that might have gone up.  I want $4.50 an hour.  But I can deal.)

21 minutes ago, trmarwaha said:

our constitution states that

We on the World's Premiere Internet Parliamentary Forum can't really give authoritative opinions about what your constitution means.  It's up to the organization to interpret its own rules, including (or especially) your constitution or bylaws.  (Or you can hire a parliamentarian, &c. &c.)

Edited January 3, 2017 at 09:56 PM by Gary c Tesser
capitalize the first "s" in "VerStandische"

[Gary c Tesser]

2 minutes ago, Gary c Tesser said:

(see FAQ #14 or so ...

OK:  Question 14:
How can I get an item on the agenda for a meeting? is at http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#14 . 

[Richard Brown]

30 minutes ago, trmarwaha said:

. . . During this meeting, one trustee presented a written and duly seconded motion to prohibiting the spouses of the executive committee members to chair any committee. (This was not pre-circulated). Motions passed with 6 in favour, 4 against and 2 abstain and 4 absent. . . .

 

9 minutes ago, Gary c Tesser said:

This sounds to me like a standing rule (VerStandische rule, in German ... maybe), which, as far as Robert's Rules of Order is concerned, can be adopted with a plain majority vote, with no previous notice required.

You think that a rule providing for who is eligible to serve as a committee chair is a standing rule rather than a special rule of order?

Unless the bylaws provide otherwise, adoption of a special rule of order would require either previous notice and a two thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership.  The vote on this "rule" fell far short of that, but if the rule was declared adopted and a timely point of order was not raised, it might be a done deal anyway.... except that special rules of order can be suspended by a two thirds vote.  And can, of course, be rescinded.

[Bruce Lages]

Although the meaning of your quote from your constitution is not entirely clear, at least to me, it does appear that it addresses, in some way, the qualifications for this committee chair position. If that is the case, then the only way to change these qualifications is to amend the constitution, following the procedure described in the constitution for its amendment.

Now, whether the effect of the motion that was passed does, in fact, change the qualifications for this position is a decision your organization has to make. If you, or any member, feels the motion contradicts the constitution, a point of order to that effect should be raised at the next meeting. The chair should rule on whether the point of order is well-taken or not. Any two members can appeal (with a second) the decision of the chair, which would put the ultimate decision in the hands of the assembly. If the decision is that the motion does in fact change the qualifications for the position as stated in the constitution, that motion is null and void.

[TVS]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH THE ADVISE

[Gary c Tesser]

1 minute ago, Richard Brown said:

You think that a rule providing for who is eligible to serve as a committee chair is a standing rule rather than a special rule of order?

I did, until you got me second-guessing, and then Mr Lages weighed in tellingly.

[Gary c Tesser]

2 minutes ago, trmarwaha said:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH THE ADVISE

Don't go away yet, we might not be done.

[Richard Brown]

I'm second guessing the post I made above about this "rule" being a special rule of order and apparently being validly adopted.  I still believe that is true, but now I'm wondering if qualifications for holding office (or a committee chairmanship) must be in the bylaws.  I question whether a special rule of order would suffice.  I'll start researching that, but I welcome someone who knows the answer weighing in. 

Edited to add:  I'm confident that qualifications for holding office must be in the bylaws, but I'm less certain about a qualification for serving as a committee chair.  I'm thinking the same principle applies, but don't know that I have ever seen it explicitly stated.

Edited January 3, 2017 at 10:26 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, trmarwaha said:

President of our organization sent a notice for a special Board meeting to approve the Committee Chair who will work with him for the Calendar year..   Usually in this process, the President will present the list of committee chairs to the Trustees and the trustees approve or reject with a simple majority..  .

During this meeting, one trustee presented a written and duly seconded motion to prohibiting the spouses of the executive committee members to chair any committee. (This was not pre-circulated). Motions passed with 6 in favour, 4 against and 2 abstain and 4 absent.

Does this motion require 2/3rd Vote as it was not part of the agenda and it was not pre-circulated.   Does it also violate any members right as our constitution states that "Any Chairperson of the committee shall be the member of the organization in good standing.

A couple of questions here, as I'm not entirely clear as to what is going on.

Question 1:  Was the new rule regarding spouses adopted at the same meeting as the request  of the president to approve the committee chair?

Question 2:  Was the rule adopted at a special meeting or a regular meeting?

Question 3:  If it was a special meeting, was the motion for the new rule listed in the call (or  notice) of the special meeting as something to be considered at that meeting?

If the rule was adopted at a special meeting and was not listed in the call or notice of the special meeting as something to be taken up at that meeting, its consideration was out of order at that meeting and in my opinion is null and void.  It violated a rule  protecting absentees and constitutes a continuing breach.

In addition, since your bylaws seem to address qualifications for committee chairmen, I think the new rule forbidding spouses from serving as committee chairs conflicts with the rule in the bylaws and would be null and void.   I am assuming that the president wanted to appoint a spouse as the committee chair and that the  spouse is a member in good standing.  If not, that changes things.

Edited January 3, 2017 at 11:03 PM by Richard Brown
Corrected typos

[Joshua Katz]

1.  Special rule of order?  Interesting.  Committees are appointed at meetings, so it's a rule about something that happens at a meeting, yes.  I'm not entirely clear that it's a rule of order, though, as opposed to an administrative detail.  I lean towards special rule of order.

2.  Qualification for office?  Well, it certainly isn't worded as one, it's worded as an anti-qualification.  The qualification would be not being married to...  However, is this really what we mean when we say qualifications for office need to be in the bylaws?  It seems more like an attendant circumstance.  Somehow, it just doesn't fit with what I picture qualifications to be.  Also, is committee chair an officer position?  I ask because RONR tells us that, if the bylaws list officers, there can be no other officers.  In many, maybe most, organizations, there is a list of officers in the bylaws, committee chairs are not mentioned, and yet they exist - even for special committees and standing committees not in the bylaws.  Are they wrong?

3.  Contradicts the Constitution?  Sure seems like it; the Constitution grants rights and here we go taking them away.  However, the Constitution says the government has to pay market value for a taking for public use - what if the government adopts a policy of paying market value plus $50?  It seems to me that would likely be on the 'good' side of the restriction - the restriction is on not paying enough.  Similarly, the constitution is, I think, trying to say that non-members cannot be appointed committee chairs - adopting more restrictions might be okay.  Also, if the trustees appoint the chairs in an entirely discretionary manner, there is no right to be a committee chair.  If this motion is out of order, there is absolutely nothing stopping a majority of the trustees from still agreeing amongst each other to vote this way on appointments.  Actually, it seems that the trustees approve nominations from the President.  If the President is under the authority of the board, the board can pass a motion directing the President in this regard, which also wouldn't be a qualification.  I have trouble saying this can't be done if it can be accomplished in these other ways.

[Guest Meed]

OK...were the committee chairs approved at this meeting, or not?

Seems to me, as the assistant tailor said, if the chairmen have been selected or approved already, the deal is done, and perhaps if the electors irregularly bound themselves, it was only their own choice which was restricted, so where's the harm?

Or, ahem, I completely misunderstand the situation...

[Dan Honemann]

13 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

If the rule was adopted at a special meeting and was not listed in the call or notice of the special meeting as something to be taken up at that meeting, its consideration was out of order at that meeting and in my opinion is null and void.  It violated a rule  protecting absentees and constitutes a continuing breach.

It's about time someone mentioned this.

The facts as stated indicate rather clearly that this was, in fact, what happened.

[George Mervosh]

 

15 hours ago, trmarwaha said:

President of our organization sent a notice for a special Board meeting to approve the Committee Chair who will work with him for the Calendar year..   Usually in this process, the President will present the list of committee chairs to the Trustees and the trustees approve or reject with a simple majority..  .

But isn't it cold comfort that the rule was not validly adopted (though it was crucial for Mr. Brown to point it out)?  From what i see in post #1, they didn't need to adopt a rule at all, they could have simply rejected the nomination of any spouse the President put forth, right?

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

 

But isn't it cold comfort that the rule was not validly adopted (though it was crucial for Mr. Brown to point it out)?  From what i see in post #1, they didn't need to adopt a rule at all, they could have simply rejected the nomination of any spouse the President put forth, right?

Yep, good point. I agree.

[Dan Honemann]

Since the question asked, in essence, was whether or not the rule was validly adopted, I think it is much more important to point out that it was not validly adopted, and why, than to note that they did not need to attempt to adopt one.

[George Mervosh]

4 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Since the question asked, in essence, was whether or not the rule was validly adopted, I think it is much more important to point out that it was not validly adopted, and why, than to note that they did not need to attempt to adopt one.

Hey, I gave Richard Brown plenty of praise for doing so!   I was just trying to help them get it right next time.

[Josh Martin]

On 1/3/2017 at 4:22 PM, Richard Brown said:

Edited to add:  I'm confident that qualifications for holding office must be in the bylaws, but I'm less certain about a qualification for serving as a committee chair.  I'm thinking the same principle applies, but don't know that I have ever seen it explicitly stated.

It seems to me that it depends on how the committee was established. If the committee is established in the bylaws, then I think it would certainly be the case that qualifications for committee chairmanship must also be in the bylaws.

12 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

But isn't it cold comfort that the rule was not validly adopted (though it was crucial for Mr. Brown to point it out)?  From what i see in post #1, they didn't need to adopt a rule at all, they could have simply rejected the nomination of any spouse the President put forth, right?

The intent of adopting a rule, rather than simply agreeing to reject the nomination of any spouse, may have been an attempt to bind future trustees.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/3/2017 at 4:33 PM, trmarwaha said:

. . . motion to prohibiting the spouses of the executive committee members to chair any committee.

 

On 1/3/2017 at 7:40 PM, Godelfan said:

2.  Qualification for office?  Well, it certainly isn't worded as one, it's worded as an anti-qualification.  The qualification would be not being married to...  However, is this really what we mean when we say qualifications for office need to be in the bylaws?  It seems more like an attendant circumstance.  Somehow, it just doesn't fit with what I picture qualifications to be.

If this type of rule isn't a qualification for office, I don't know what is. And I don't know if you are using the term "attendant circumstance" correctly from a legal standpoint, but I think maybe your legal studies have begun to muddle some of your thought processes in the present matter.

[Joshua Katz]

I am definitely not using it correctly, and they probably are muddling my thought process.  I did well on my open memo, which means I have also lost the ability to write like a normal person.