Guest Ellen Posted December 5, 2018 at 05:51 PM Report Share Posted December 5, 2018 at 05:51 PM Isn’t there a rule that “requires” members to accept, or at least not to undermine, the will of the majority? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted December 5, 2018 at 06:05 PM Report Share Posted December 5, 2018 at 06:05 PM Well, it's not exactly a rule, but there is this from PL: “The greatest lesson for democracies to learn is for the majority to give to the minority a full, free opportunity to present their side of the case, and then for the minority, having failed to win a majority to their views, gracefully to submit and to recognize the action as that of the entire organization, and cheerfully to assist in carrying it out until they can secure its repeal.” A member should not act to disrupt a majority decision; I'm not sure you need a rule for that, because it's the basic assumption of a deliberative assembly. Namely, part of being a deliberative assembly is that everyone assumes they will remain members even when they are unhappy with a decision. But a decision is not a decision forever, and certainly a member may undermine a majority decision in one way: by moving to rescind or amend, as the quote from PL says. What sort of undermining do you have in mind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted December 5, 2018 at 06:15 PM Report Share Posted December 5, 2018 at 06:15 PM 8 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said: Well, it's not exactly a rule, but there is this from PL: Are you confident that Guest Ellen knows what "PL" is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted December 5, 2018 at 06:16 PM Report Share Posted December 5, 2018 at 06:16 PM But if I didn't abbreviate, it would really sound like a rule! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ellen Posted December 5, 2018 at 06:47 PM Report Share Posted December 5, 2018 at 06:47 PM No, I don’t know what PL is. What is happening is our organization passed a resolution, and one of the Chairs had been actively working against it. Our Chairs do not have a vote, and per our rules (as well as Roberts Rules) don’t allow speaking for or against any motion before the body. I managed to shut him down at the meeting, but he is now continuing to undermine the resolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 5, 2018 at 07:01 PM Report Share Posted December 5, 2018 at 07:01 PM 12 minutes ago, Guest Ellen said: No, I don’t know what PL is. What is happening is our organization passed a resolution, and one of the Chairs had been actively working against it. Our Chairs do not have a vote, and per our rules (as well as Roberts Rules) don’t allow speaking for or against any motion before the body. I managed to shut him down at the meeting, but he is now continuing to undermine the resolution. Well, perhaps the organization should threaten to remove this person from his chair position if he doesn’t behave, and then follow through on that threat if necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted December 5, 2018 at 07:04 PM Report Share Posted December 5, 2018 at 07:04 PM PL is Parliamentary Law. It is a book by General Robert about parliamentary procedure, and explains a great deal, but is not "rules" in the sense of RONR when your organization has adopted Robert's Rules. How do you have multiple chairs? Per RONR, the chair may speak against a motion by giving up the gavel for the length of the topic, but your rules may be stricter. I still don't know, other than speaking at the meeting, what he is doing to undermine the motion. Can you be more specific? He is free, especially outside a meeting, to say he doesn't like it. He is allowed to politic in order to gather the votes to rescind or amend. He can't interfere with carrying it out, and can be subject to discipline if he does that. So the specific ways he is undermining it determine the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ellen Posted December 5, 2018 at 07:29 PM Report Share Posted December 5, 2018 at 07:29 PM 19 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said: PL is Parliamentary Law. It is a book by General Robert about parliamentary procedure, and explains a great deal, but is not "rules" in the sense of RONR when your organization has adopted Robert's Rules. How do you have multiple chairs? Per RONR, the chair may speak against a motion by giving up the gavel for the length of the topic, but your rules may be stricter. I still don't know, other than speaking at the meeting, what he is doing to undermine the motion. Can you be more specific? He is free, especially outside a meeting, to say he doesn't like it. He is allowed to politic in order to gather the votes to rescind or amend. He can't interfere with carrying it out, and can be subject to discipline if he does that. So the specific ways he is undermining it determine the answer. Thank you for all the replies. Our bylaws are stricter for our co-Chairs. He has been actively working against our resolution of support with the government entities who will decide the issue. I have warned that I will move to have him removed if he continues, although I hope that’s not necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted December 5, 2018 at 09:21 PM Report Share Posted December 5, 2018 at 09:21 PM 1 hour ago, Guest Ellen said: our co-Chairs That may be part of your problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 8, 2018 at 12:16 AM Report Share Posted December 8, 2018 at 12:16 AM On 12/5/2018 at 2:29 PM, Guest Ellen said: Thank you for all the replies. Our bylaws are stricter for our co-Chairs. He has been actively working against our resolution of support with the government entities who will decide the issue. I have warned that I will move to have him removed if he continues, although I hope that’s not necessary. Are you quite certain your bylaws permit "co-Chairs"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts