jstackpo Posted February 16, 2019 at 10:11 PM Report Share Posted February 16, 2019 at 10:11 PM I'm on pins and needles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAILORMAN Posted March 23, 2019 at 01:58 AM Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 01:58 AM OK Thank you for you patience, This is a 7 member board. The Secretary recorded the meeting audio. With the knowledge of all. We had the special meeting this morning. Once called to order I raised the point of order that the meeting is in violation of our by-laws because the call of the meeting was improper as per RONR and that RONR is our parliamentary authority. I provided copies of the appropriate article of the By-Laws and and sited the appropriate pages and lines of RONR. Chaos ensued and complaints were made that customarily the rules have not been known or adhered to. The chair did not take control. I explained that customs that violate the By-Laws and RONR can not continue and must be abandoned. No vote was properly taken but an apparent majority disapproved of following the rules. I then moved that we agree to follow our By-Laws. More chaos. The chair did not maintain order and when I called the previous question the chair instead improperly motioned to "suspend the rules" for the entire meeting.and to continue with the meeting, which passed 5 to 2 (myself and the secretary against). I then asked, "So you are all going on record as agreeing to ignore the by-laws and RONR ? The reply was yes. The meeting continued and all parliamentary law I pointed out during the meeting was ignored. The board then proceeded to vote to remove an officer and did. (there are no set terms of office) I am dealing with a complete disregard for the rules unless they are convenient for their purposes. I am not an expert but I don't think they can "suspend the ALL rules" for an entire meeting especially if the By-Laws call for adherence to RONR. But, that is what they did. What can I do to prove to them that they are putting the entire organization in jeopardy. What authority can be used to impel them to follow their own By-Laws? 'Respectfully frustrated and with blood pressure levels that will likely land me in a hospital, Sailorman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted March 23, 2019 at 02:13 AM Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 02:13 AM 7 minutes ago, SAILORMAN said: So you are all going on record as agreeing to ignore the by-laws and RONR ? The reply was yes. The meeting 8 minutes ago, SAILORMAN said: I am dealing with a complete disregard for the rules unless they are convenient for their purposes. I am not an expert but I don't think they can "suspend the ALL rules" for an entire meeting especially if the By-Laws call for adherence to RONR. Based on your post, you are correct. All of the rules, including even the rules in the bylaws, cannot be suspended to let the majority do whatever it wants to do. However, I know of no way, other than going to court, to force other members to follow the rules. That's what disciplinary proceedings and elections are for. Elect people who will follow the rules. 10 minutes ago, SAILORMAN said: What can I do to prove to them that they are putting the entire organization in jeopardy. What authority can be used to impel them to follow their own By-Laws? I don't know... and I don't know how you "impel" someone to do something. The only things I know to do are to keep trying to educate them and to elect new leaders at the next election. Or file suit to set aside something done without authority and in violation of the rules. You can try disciplinary action or removing one or more of them from office, but I don't see that a majority of the board is likely to go along with that. People have the right to be bone-headed and the right to be wrong. Perhaps others have better ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted March 23, 2019 at 04:33 AM Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 04:33 AM (edited) 2 hours ago, SAILORMAN said: Once called to order I raised the point of order that the meeting is in violation of our by-laws because the call of the meeting was improper as per RONR and that RONR is our parliamentary authority. Based on the information you provided, this appears to be incorrect. The agenda/notice had all the required information and was timely. 2 hours ago, SAILORMAN said: No vote was properly taken but an apparent majority disapproved of following the rules. Again, this appears to be incorrect. No rules appear to have been broken up to then.. 2 hours ago, SAILORMAN said: I then asked, "So you are all going on record as agreeing to ignore the by-laws and RONR ? The reply was yes. It is unfortunate that they said this; and that you asked because no suspension of any rule was necessary because no rule appears to have been broken in the calling of the meeting. 2 hours ago, SAILORMAN said: The board then proceeded to vote to remove an officer and did. Was this the business that was mentioned in the agenda/notice? 2 hours ago, SAILORMAN said: I am dealing with a complete disregard for the rules unless they are convenient for their purposes. Perhaps, but please note that our last advice to you was that the meeting notice/agenda appeared to be proper, you made a Point of Order anyway, and the assembly -- informally -- decided against you (and, incidentally, in accordance with the rules). Edited March 23, 2019 at 04:38 AM by Atul Kapur Grammar correction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 23, 2019 at 05:23 PM Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 05:23 PM (edited) 15 hours ago, SAILORMAN said: I am dealing with a complete disregard for the rules unless they are convenient for their purposes. As I understand it, the dispute was regarding this: “The call did not even state "action item". All it said was date time and place and that members should make travel arrangements to be there. The call came out with plenty of time and the agenda showed up 21 days later which also is well ahead of our deadline for notice. But "the call" was our first notice of the meeting. Is agenda being sent after the "improper call" a notice since we had already been notified?” Apparently, the assembly decided that an agenda sent after the initial call which included the remaining necessary information for the special meeting, sent to all members of the board and sent the required number of days in advance, was sufficient notice under the organization’s rules for a special meeting. This seems like an entirely reasonable interpretation, and one I am personally inclined to agree with. Even if I were not inclined to agree with it, I don’t think I would describe it as “a complete disregard for the rules unless they are convenient for their purposes.” I would also note that the purpose of notice for a special meeting is to inform members of what will come up at the meeting so that members can decide whether to attend. Since all members of the board attended, it is not clear what harm was done by the alleged failure to provide proper notice. Since we have just now been informed that the vote was to remove a member, it may be that the vote is deficient for some other reason, but I cannot say for sure without knowing what your bylaws say concerning the removal of board members, how the term of office is defined, and how board members are elected. In any event, the board has made its decision. If you wish to pursue this further, you would need to take your case to the general membership, or consult an attorney to see what legal recourse you might have, if you wish to compel the board to take some action. Edited March 23, 2019 at 05:27 PM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAILORMAN Posted March 30, 2019 at 07:55 AM Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2019 at 07:55 AM On 3/23/2019 at 7:23 AM, Josh Martin said: Apparently, the assembly decided that an agenda sent after the initial call which included the remaining necessary information for the special meeting, sent to all members of the board and sent the required number of days in advance, was sufficient notice under the organization’s rules for a special meeting. This seems like an entirely reasonable interpretation, and one I am personally inclined to agree with. Even if I were not inclined to agree with it, I don’t think I would describe it as “a complete disregard for the rules unless they are convenient for their purposes.” The assembly did not decide the notice was correct. It just decided to ignore any rule that might make it or anything else that happened at the meeting incorrect. Many other objections were raised and all not even treated as a motion. They just ignored them and just moved on. Disappointed and frustrated! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted March 30, 2019 at 09:12 AM Report Share Posted March 30, 2019 at 09:12 AM 1 hour ago, SAILORMAN said: Many other objections were raised and all not even treated as a motion. Were these actual motions, such as Points Of Order, or were these just comments made without any motion? 1 hour ago, SAILORMAN said: They just ignored them and just moved on. Perhaps this is how the majority of members perceived the issue. 1 hour ago, SAILORMAN said: Disappointed and frustrated! You did what you could. Do not despair, this how the majority sometimes rolls. Keep working at it, get more friends to read the RONRIB and give it some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted March 30, 2019 at 10:16 AM Report Share Posted March 30, 2019 at 10:16 AM (edited) 12 hours ago, SAILORMAN said: The assembly did not decide the notice was correct. It just decided to ignore any rule that might make it or anything else that happened at the meeting incorrect. This is a completely predictable response when someone is or is perceived to be using an incorrect interpretation of the rules for an obstructionist or dilatory purpose. Edited March 30, 2019 at 08:30 PM by Atul Kapur Was going to delete all the text, given Mr. H's comment immediately below. But, seeing as it is evidence leading to his conclusion, I'm leaving it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 30, 2019 at 11:39 AM Report Share Posted March 30, 2019 at 11:39 AM This thread is obviously going nowhere, and ought to stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted March 30, 2019 at 08:25 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2019 at 08:25 PM 8 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: This thread is obviously going nowhere, and ought to stop. Yet it is not without value: it serves to illustrate that those who seek to enforce the rules for the sake of the rules alone are destined to fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted March 30, 2019 at 09:21 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2019 at 09:21 PM 55 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said: Yet it is not without value: it serves to illustrate that those who seek to enforce the rules for the sake of the rules alone are destined to fail. That is funny. It is what my dad used to tell me all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts