Point of Order

[coronacars]

In our meeting I called a Point of order regarding eligibility of nominees who were elected because of term limits.  The Chair overruled me.  I appealed the Chairs decision and immediately had a second.  I asked for a vote and after discussion another member made a motion to table it.  It as then seconded and the chair moved on.  Am I wrong I thought after a second on an appeal it should be voted on at that time?

 

[Chris Harrison]

You are not correct.  After the Appeal has been seconded it is open to debate (provided the Appeal was not undebatable-which wouldn't be the case in your case).  Also, an Appeal can be Laid on the Table.  See RONR pp. 255-260.

[Gary Novosielski]

It sounded from the original question that the chair failed to take a vote on the motion to Lay on the Table, but "moved on" as soon as it was seconded.  And while it is true that an Appeal can be laid on the table, it is not in order to do so if the intent is to kill the motion.

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

It sounded from the original question that the chair failed to take a vote on the motion to Lay on the Table, but "moved on" as soon as it was seconded.  And while it is true that an Appeal can be laid on the table, it is not in order to do so if the intent is to kill the motion.

I agree with Mr. Novosielski.  It was not proper for the chair to "move on" without a vote on the motion to Lay on the Table.

Mr. Harrison is right that a motion to lay the appeal on the table is proper, but it requires an affirmative vote to do so... not just a motion and a second to lay on the table.  

 

[Josh Martin]

In addition to the previous responses, I would note that laying on an Appeal on the table also lays the main motion (in this case, the election) on the table).

[Gary Novosielski]

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

In addition to the previous responses, I would note that laying on an Appeal on the table also lays the main motion (in this case, the election) on the table).

An excellent point, and (depending what "moved on" entails) one that the chair may also have violated.  At this point, we need to know whether the election was held, whether anyone ineligible for election was nominated, and whether anyone ineligible to serve was elected.

What we need now is more information from OP coronacars.

If the chair had acted properly, and the motion to Lay on the Table was duly adopted, and the next meeting has not yet occured, it should then be possible to Take the appeal from the Table, finally decide on the eligibility of the questionable candidates, and hold the election.

If not, and breaches have indeed occurred, we need to advise coronacars on how to proceed.

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

In addition to the previous responses, I would note that laying on an Appeal on the table also lays the main motion (in this case, the election) on the table).

I'm not at all sure about this. It appears that the point of order was raised regarding the eligibility of nominees who were declared to have been elected. As a consequence, it may well be that this appeal does not adhere to any pending motion.

If the point of order was raised immediately following the chair's announcement of the result of the vote, I suppose the election might be regarded as still pending, but I'm not at all comfortable with the idea that a motion might then be made to lay the election on the table.

 

[Gary Novosielski]

I think we need a better description of what happened before the point of order was raised, and what happened after.  I've reread the OQ, and it's just not clear to me what the detailed timeline would look like.  

I can't tell for sure from "eligibility of nominees who were elected because of term limits" whether the point of order was raised before or after the election.  For all I know, the point was raised about the nominees, but the chair went ahead and held the election anyway. 

Too many puzzle pieces are missing.

Edited November 6, 2018 at 03:58 PM by Gary Novosielski

[coronacars]

I will provide better details tonight I have to work today and I'll lay it all out tonight.  Thanks guys.

 

[coronacars]

Ok so here is what happened.  The ballot was mailed out Sept. 27 and had a deadline to be mailed in and received Nov 26. or bring it to the members meeting Nov. 3rd.  After the ballots were distributed the board maybe 10 days later said they would not accept ballots from new members who recently signed up.  That is not in accordance with our bylaws, but they explained that is president, whether right or wrong they don't know, but they have done it that way for 20+ years so that is how they do it.   Then came the members meeting on Nov 3.  They opened the meeting and we had turned in 55 proxies.  They then announced the results of the voting.  The President, First Vice President, and Membership Secretary were in play.  Of course the President was the Chair for the meeting.  The Recording Secretary announced the results and I called Point of Order.  I objected because the President and the Membership Secretary were termed out and should not be allowed to run again. The Chair deflected the Point and started taking other questions and objections.  10 minutes later I again reminded him I have a Point of Order.  He said we will get to it and kept talking other questions and interacting with other members.  I then said again I have a Point of Order and would like a decision.  He just stood there looking at me.  I explained my point and quoted the bylaws and why I objected to them running.  He then said he thought it was ok.  That they should be able to run.  I said I appeal the Chair, and immediately it was seconded.  He just stood there.  I then asked for a vote of the membership as he was not doing anything.  He continued to stand there.  I asked again for a vote of the membership as governed by Roberts Rules.  He did not want to take a vote because we had the 55 proxies and he knew he did not have that.  He continued to stand there and another board member said just call the meeting and lets get out of here.  He stood there longer and someone said I motion to table it.  Someone else seconded it and he said it is put off until our March meeting, and the slate of elected officers would take office Dec 1, 2018.  He said if anything changes we would deal with it in March.  That is the short version.  My question is can it be tabled?

[Josh Martin]

20 hours ago, coronacars said:

Ok so here is what happened.  The ballot was mailed out Sept. 27 and had a deadline to be mailed in and received Nov 26. or bring it to the members meeting Nov. 3rd.  After the ballots were distributed the board maybe 10 days later said they would not accept ballots from new members who recently signed up.  That is not in accordance with our bylaws, but they explained that is president, whether right or wrong they don't know, but they have done it that way for 20+ years so that is how they do it.   Then came the members meeting on Nov 3.  They opened the meeting and we had turned in 55 proxies.  They then announced the results of the voting.  The President, First Vice President, and Membership Secretary were in play.  Of course the President was the Chair for the meeting.  The Recording Secretary announced the results and I called Point of Order.  I objected because the President and the Membership Secretary were termed out and should not be allowed to run again. The Chair deflected the Point and started taking other questions and objections.  10 minutes later I again reminded him I have a Point of Order.  He said we will get to it and kept talking other questions and interacting with other members.  I then said again I have a Point of Order and would like a decision.  He just stood there looking at me.  I explained my point and quoted the bylaws and why I objected to them running.  He then said he thought it was ok.  That they should be able to run.  I said I appeal the Chair, and immediately it was seconded.  He just stood there.  I then asked for a vote of the membership as he was not doing anything.  He continued to stand there.  I asked again for a vote of the membership as governed by Roberts Rules.  He did not want to take a vote because we had the 55 proxies and he knew he did not have that.  He continued to stand there and another board member said just call the meeting and lets get out of here.  He stood there longer and someone said I motion to table it.  Someone else seconded it and he said it is put off until our March meeting, and the slate of elected officers would take office Dec 1, 2018.  He said if anything changes we would deal with it in March.  That is the short version.  My question is can it be tabled?

No, the motion to Lay on the Table was not the correct motion to use in this instance, since that is used to temporarily set aside a motion in order to take up some urgent business. The proper motion in such cases generally would be Postpone to a Certain Time, but that is also not in order in this case, since the March meeting is more than a quarterly interval away. Finally, even if these motions had been in order, they both require a majority vote for adoption (and postpone is debatable). A motion and a second is not sufficient to adopt them.

Nonetheless, it appears that at this time no resolution has yet been reached on this issue, but members are free to raise the matter again at the next meeting.

On 11/6/2018 at 8:08 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I'm not at all sure about this. It appears that the point of order was raised regarding the eligibility of nominees who were declared to have been elected. As a consequence, it may well be that this appeal does not adhere to any pending motion.

If the point of order was raised immediately following the chair's announcement of the result of the vote, I suppose the election might be regarded as still pending, but I'm not at all comfortable with the idea that a motion might then be made to lay the election on the table.

Based on the additional facts, I agree that the appeal does not appear to adhere to any pending motion.

[coronacars]

Thanks guys for this information.  I will keep reading and trying to learn all of this.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

Is there not an assumed, and in this case adopted, motion "that X be elected"? And the reason the Point of Order does not have to be timely is that this motion, as it pertains to the ineligible President and Membership Secretary, is in conflict with the bylaws?

[Josh Martin]

12 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Is there not an assumed, and in this case adopted, motion "that X be elected"?

Yes, there is, but it does not appear that the election was pending.

12 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

And the reason the Point of Order does not have to be timely is that this motion, as it pertains to the ineligible President and Membership Secretary, is in conflict with the bylaws?

Yes, that is correct.

[coronacars]

So when a board does this are there and remedies or penalties that can be asked for or imposed?  What are the consequences?

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, coronacars said:

So when a board does this are there and remedies or penalties that can be asked for or imposed?  What are the consequences?

It would seem that the first remedy is to raise a Point of Order and Appeal again at the next regular meeting, or a special meeting called for the purpose, that the elections of the ineligible persons are invalid.

If it is also desired to impose penalties on other members of the board (such as the chairman), see FAQ #20.

Edited November 8, 2018 at 07:16 PM by Josh Martin

[coronacars]

Thank you Josh.  It is an uphill battle, but I will keep fighting it.