Where Bylaws Are Silent - Voting/Position

[MikeLSJC]

Our organization is a standing subcommittee of a larger organization. We have our own bylaws. The parent organization provides in its bylaws for the ascendancy of a position - e.g. Vice Chair - to the Chair at the end of the Chair's term, by acclamation. Our subcommittee is silent on this issue. 

Does the parent's bylaw's therefore govern our bylaws?

If not, does this silence mean that this issue can be governed by motion, or since this is a voting issue, it can't be? We didn't pass any motions on this at our last meeting, and elections are at our next meeting. As current Chair, I'm not certain of the specifics and if it can be modified, can I accept a motion on voting at this next meeting, as it is material to the election and I'm concerned about the appearance of impropriety in accepting a motion before the vote occurs.....

 

Thanks.

[jstackpo]

In RONR's terms "subcommittees" are entirely creatures of the association that created the committees, and subcommittees, in question.  They don't have bylaws of their own.

You clearly (obscurely to me) have some sort of other arrangement set up by you parent organization and the "subcommittee". 

Maybe others here can offer help; my only suggestion is to seek out an experienced parliamentarian to read your (parent-?) association's bylaws, and your own, and figure out how to answer your question based on the jurisdictional relationships involved.

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Dr. Stackpole. I have nothing to offer in addition to what doctor stackpole said because this arrangement is simply too far from the typical arrangement of a subcommittee to its parent committee and the parent organization as described in RONR.

Edited February 28, 2019 at 02:05 AM by Richard Brown
Added language to second sentence as indicated

[Guest Zev]

Part of the problem here is that your organizational structure is not the usual structure as defined by our parliamentary authority, and we do not know what your parent organization's bylaws say and how that would affect your "motion;" or what that "motion" actually is, or why is a subcommittee holding elections. Would it hurt to ask the highest-ranking officer in the parent organization what his opinion on this matter would be? You might get a quicker answer by asking that officer.

[Josh Martin]

12 hours ago, MikeLSJC said:

Our organization is a standing subcommittee of a larger organization. We have our own bylaws. 

“Subcommittee” is not the right word for this.

12 hours ago, MikeLSJC said:

Does the parent's bylaw's therefore govern our bylaws?

Probably not. Most likely, the provision in question applies solely to the parent organization.

”The bylaws of a subordinate unit need to conform to those of a superior body only on clearly requisite points. For example, if the superior body limits the size of its subordinate units to 200 members, the bylaws should contain this limit or one that is lower. But the subordinate unit should not adopt provisions from the other document that have no local application, and the bylaws of the superior body should not require it to do so.” (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 587-588)

12 hours ago, MikeLSJC said:

If not, does this silence mean that this issue can be governed by motion, or since this is a voting issue, it can't be? We didn't pass any motions on this at our last meeting, and elections are at our next meeting. As current Chair, I'm not certain of the specifics and if it can be modified, can I accept a motion on voting at this next meeting, as it is material to the election and I'm concerned about the appearance of impropriety in accepting a motion before the vote occurs.....

It seems to me that the appropriate course of action is to hold an election, as is required in RONR. If a member believes that the provision in the parent organization’s bylaws is controlling, he could raise a Point of Order while the election is pending. You would rule on this point, subject to appeal.

I do not think making a motion on this subject in advance of the election is in order.

12 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Part of the problem here is that your organizational structure is not the usual structure as defined by our parliamentary authority,

I don’t think it’s that unusual. It seems to me that they are just using nonstandard terminology. It seems clear that there is a parent organization and a subordinate unit.

[MikeLSJC]

I appreciate everyone's help and feedback on this.

I think that the point about nonstandard terminology is correct - in RONR terms, the idea of a parent organization and a subordinate unit is appropriate and, though we are unlikely to change our internal terminology, for parliamentary questions, I'll relay that terminology. As it happens, in our case, our parent's Chair is not a strong parliamentarian (we have a few strong people on this, however the nature of our organization is that we are generally NOT strong on this...), and therefore, having solicited his opinion on some issues, recognized a need to go a stronger source - here. Further, his term ends at our next meeting in a few weeks.

Having found some references on propriety of changing any bylaw related to voting rights, I'm also wary of accepting/allowing motions at the next session in which voting will occur on anything to do with voting, and will likely need to rule any of those out of order unless they are specific and right on point with RONR and our bylaws - which is unlikely given the nature and makeup of our membership in this subcommittee.

 

Thanks.

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I don’t think it’s that unusual. It seems to me that they are just using nonstandard terminology. It seems clear that there is a parent organization and a subordinate unit.

Having read the rest of the comments and your analysis, I agree. 

[Richard Brown]

13 minutes ago, MikeLSJC said:

Having found some references on propriety of changing any bylaw related to voting rights, I'm also wary of accepting/allowing motions at the next session in which voting will occur on anything to do with voting, and will likely need to rule any of those out of order unless they are specific and right on point with RONR and our bylaws - which is unlikely given the nature and makeup of our membership in this subcommittee.

Why do you think it is inappropriate to make any changes regarding voting (or voting rights) prior  to the voting taking place at an election meeting?  Can you cite any of these references?  It is not unusual for organizations to adopt bylaw changes affecting voting procedures, terms of office, term limits, creating new offices, and even affecting voting rights immediately prior to conducting an election.  It is usually done with the specific intent that the newly adopted provisions, which usually take effect immediately, be in place for the election which is about to take place.

On what basis do you think you could rule a properly proposed bylaw amendment out of order? 

Ruling a proposed bylaw amendment out of order if it violates a specific controlling rule is one thing, but ruling it out of order because you just don't want any last minute changes affecting voting is not a valid reason for ruling something out of order. 

Am I missing something?

[jstackpo]

1 hour ago, MikeLSJC said:

Further, his term ends at our next meeting in a few weeks.

As a "Welcome to your new Honors and Responsibilities" gift for your soon to be new Chairman, give him/her a copy of

RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will ever need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link: 

http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html

Or in your local bookstore.

And get copies for your Board members, too.

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Why do you think it is inappropriate to make any changes regarding voting (or voting rights) prior  to the voting taking place at an election meeting?  Can you cite any of these references?  It is not unusual for organizations to adopt bylaw changes affecting voting procedures, terms of office, term limits, creating new offices, and even affecting voting rights immediately prior to conducting an election.  It is usually done with the specific intent that the newly adopted provisions, which usually take effect immediately, be in place for the election which is about to take place.

On what basis do you think you could rule a properly proposed bylaw amendment out of order? 

Ruling a proposed bylaw amendment out of order if it violates a specific controlling rule is one thing, but ruling it out of order because you just don't want any last minute changes affecting voting is not a valid reason for ruling something out of order. 

Am I missing something?

My understanding is that the OP expects that a member will simply offer an ordinary main motion on this subject, not an amendment to the bylaws. I concur that an amendment to the bylaws would be in order, assuming any requirements for previous notice are met.