Guest Kim LL2014 Posted March 21, 2019 at 07:29 PM Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 07:29 PM Hello, Question: Based on RONR, suspending the rules can take place retroactively? Background: Our board has a selection process to choose persons to lead a bi-annual event. According to our Policies and Practices, persons who have lead the event before and persons who have not are both eligible for the selection process. During our previous leader selection, our chairperson said that we should remove persons who have lead the event before from eligibility. Some board members agreed, some disagreed. We did not make a motion to update our Policies and Practices or any other adjustments to the Policies and Practices. The names of those persons who had served before were removed from eligibility. The selection process proceeded without those names. At the next meeting, a member brought up that the selection was null and void because the process went against our Policies and Practices. Can the situation be corrected by retroactively suspending the rules (i.e., the Policies and Practices section regarding the persons eligible for selection)? I am a novice with regards to RONR, so all (constructive!) suggestions and feedback are welcome. Many thanks in advance for your help, Kim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted March 21, 2019 at 07:46 PM Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 07:46 PM No, you can't retroactively suspend the rules, nor may the rules be suspended even prospectively for the purpose of denying members rights of participation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kim LL2014 Posted March 21, 2019 at 08:03 PM Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 08:03 PM Joshua, Thanks for the quick response! For "nor may the rules be suspended even prospectively for the purpose of denying members rights of participation" the members in question are not board members, does this impact the situation? Best, Kim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted March 21, 2019 at 08:13 PM Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 08:13 PM Since we are not talking about the right to participate in a meeting, no fundamental right was violated. Your selection stands because a point of order had to be timely, that is, raised when the Policies and Practices were breached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted March 21, 2019 at 08:29 PM Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 08:29 PM 21 minutes ago, Guest Kim LL2014 said: Thanks for the quick response! For "nor may the rules be suspended even prospectively for the purpose of denying members rights of participation" the members in question are not board members, does this impact the situation? It seems to me that, for those members eligible to be selected, such eligibility is a right of membership, and thus, the rules cannot (in the future) be suspended to declare them ineligible. It seems to me that GWCTD is answering a question I did not address, namely, what to do about it now (nothing). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 21, 2019 at 08:32 PM Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 08:32 PM (edited) 1 hour ago, Guest Kim LL2014 said: The selection process proceeded without those names. At the next meeting, a member brought up that the selection was null and void because the process went against our Policies and Practices. Can the situation be corrected by retroactively suspending the rules (i.e., the Policies and Practices section regarding the persons eligible for selection)? Unless members actually attempted to cast votes for the persons who were erroneously declared to be ineligible, those votes were discarded, and there were enough such votes that they could have affected the result, I believe the member is mistaken in his argument that the vote is null and void. I concur with Mr. Katz that the action taken was not proper and the rules could not have been suspended to permit it, however, I think it is too late to complain now. Edited March 21, 2019 at 08:33 PM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted March 21, 2019 at 09:25 PM Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 09:25 PM We've had other discussions on this forum on the relationship between suspendability and the need for timeliness and, as I recall, that was the breach of a suspendable rule had to have a timely point of order and vice-versa. So I'm not clear why the answers here are different. Is it because the voters were able to vote for people not on the ballot (even if they did not understand that they could)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 21, 2019 at 10:07 PM Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 10:07 PM 32 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said: We've had other discussions on this forum on the relationship between suspendability and the need for timeliness and, as I recall, that was the breach of a suspendable rule had to have a timely point of order and vice-versa. So I'm not clear why the answers here are different. Is it because the voters were able to vote for people not on the ballot (even if they did not understand that they could)? Yes, I think that is what it boils down to. If members are erroneously advised that a candidate is ineligible, and members then follow that advice, I do not think this constitutes denying those members the right to vote for the candidate of their choice. Even if it did, RONR notes that depriving members of their right to vote only invalidates the action taken if the number of votes denied could have affected the result. If the members voluntarily agree to vote for other persons, it is not clear how it can be demonstrated that the erroneous advice affected the result. While the assembly erred in declaring that candidates who had previously served in these positions were not eligible, I am not sure there is anything to do about it now except to apologize and get it right next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts