Delaying outcome of a motion

[Guest Can Do]

What can be done when the chairman purposely delays the outcome of a motion

[RGV]

Adding a little clarity here

the chairman in a general assemble gets a motion from the floor. He tries to debate it from the podium and is quickly stopped. He processed the motion which was unanimously passed. He then delayed the outcome of that motion until he could verify “the legalness of it”

what can be done to avoid this stunt in the future?  Can the chairman be censured for his conduct?

thanks

[Atul Kapur]

Yes, you could censure the chairman. You could even take action to remove the chair.

You could also direct someone else to execute the motion. 

[Joshua Katz]

What does "delayed the outcome" mean?

Agreeing with Dr. Kapur, I'm familiar with at least one case where a board, fed up with inaction from the chair, simply assigned its vice-chair additional executive authority.

It should be noted that, as RONR mentions, the actual execution of motions is an activity performed outside the deliberative body - in a purely deliberative body, such issues would never arise. Thus, actions outside the meeting necessitated by the motion need to be dealt with via discipline, removal from office, censure, etc., rather than pure procedure.

It might be worth figuring out, though, why the chair thinks execution might be illegal (I assume substantively, since otherwise he would have just ruled it out of order). An organization can, of course, act in ways that violate substantive law, but it's generally a bad idea. 

Edited December 13, 2018 at 04:30 PM by Joshua Katz

[Richard Brown]

Agreeing with Dr. Kapur, a motion becomes effective immediately.... instantaneously.... upon adoption unless by its own terms or by virtue of some other rule there is a delay.  The presiding officer (or chairman or president) has no authority to "delay" the effective date or time of a motion.  If a problem is found with the motion later, it can be rescinded or amended.   If there are concerns about its "appropriateness" at the time it is being considered, it can be withdrawn (with the consent of the assembly), postponed or referred to a committee.  Or simply voted down.

[Gary Novosielski]

The time to debate the legalness [sic] of an action is while the motion is being debated.  If the chair felt strongly about it, he could have relinquished the chair and participated in that debate.  But once the vote was taken, the chair's opinion on the advisability of the motion is no more relevant than mine.

Yes, a motion to censure would certainly be in order.  It has no effect other than letting the chair know the assembly is officially displeased, but one can hope that it would serve as a word to the wise.

Edited December 13, 2018 at 09:01 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Guest Zev]

41 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Yes, a motion to censure would certainly be in order.

Absolutely and in all haste. He should be reminded that he is not a deputy of the local district attorney. Besides, if any legal repercussions flow from this the organization takes the hit and not any of the officers. So what is his deal?

[Joshua Katz]

11 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Besides, if any legal repercussions flow from this the organization takes the hit and not any of the officers.

Well, I agree with the general point, but we don't know enough about the motion, in my view, to know this. There's nothing we've been told that establishes that the chair himself won't face legal consequences for "executing" the motion. We don't know that he will, either, but he could well fear this. (The correct response, in addition to debating it initially, would be to leave the position if you can't carry it out, but a noisy departure, informing the members that they've made a mistake by forcing people to choose between criminal liability and giving up a position, is not necessarily improper.) To emphasize - yes, the chair is supposed to carry it out, and no, the chair does not have discretion to decide an adopted motion is not going to be carried out. But I do not agree with making definitive statements about the consequences of actions without knowing anything about it. 

My earlier point, in case it was misunderstood, was simply that everyone involved is human. There's nothing wrong with, before you kick the chair out, asking "so, why do you think this is illegal?"

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Mr. Katz's post immediately above.  I don't  believe we know enough to say more than "per RONR, the chair has no authority to delay the implementation of an adopted motion" and that "if he does so, he might be subject do disciplinary action or censure".

[RGV]

Adding a little clarity here

the chairman in a general assemble gets a motion from the floor. He tries to debate it from the podium and is quickly stopped. He processed the motion which was unanimously passed. He then delayed the outcome of that motion until he could verify “the legalness of it”

what can be done to avoid this stunt in the future?  Can the chairman be censured for his conduct?

thanks

 

Thanks to all who replied. All of your thoughts were mine as well. Just wanted reassurance. 

More clarrity for you;

the Chairman has held this office for more then 3 years. He refuses to learn the skills necessary as well as RONR. The motion was to hold an election to fill two vacancies, as required by our Constitution & Bylaws. The motion also included notifying all members by first class mail, which he also objected to. After the motion passed (unanimously I might add), he stated that he wanted to check into the legality of the motion. This comment created quite a stir among the members. 

Sounds simple and crazy I know. That’s what’s out there now as “leaders”. 

Thanks again. 👍

[Guest Zev]

5 hours ago, RGV said:

The motion was to hold an election to fill two vacancies, as required by our Constitution & Bylaws.

Is there any possibility whatsoever that there may be some language in the Constitution & Bylaws that could have made the chairman think that there was something improper with holding a special election to fill these positions? Some timing issue or perhaps the method of filling vacancies?

[RGV]

Our Constitution & Bylaws are quite clear on this issue. The problem we have with the Chair is ignorance and arrogance. 

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

17 hours ago, RGV said:

The motion was to hold an election to fill two vacancies, as required by our Constitution & Bylaws. The motion also included notifying all members by first class mail, which he also objected to. After the motion passed (unanimously I might add), he stated that he wanted to check into the legality of the motion.

So let him check. What does that have to do with notifying the members and getting on with the election?

[RGV]

Agreed. This chair has a history of delay tactics, especially if the motion doesn’t go his way. Again, he loves to debate motions himself from the podium. Our members are quite fed up with one delay after another. Only recently are others willing to object to his debating from the chair. 

Thank you

[jstackpo]

Sounds like the time is (almost-?) ripe to get a new chair.  Or at the least, suspend his serving as chair at the next meeting:  See page 15, lines 7-13, and page 651, lines 15ff.

You could keep doing that (good luck!) meeting by meeting, until he learns his lesson.