Question about adjourning to a fixed time

[Guest Leanne]

When a meeting of the general membership is adjourned to a fixed time (after having passed a number of motions), is it out of order for the chair and/or board to send out a letter declaring those motions invalid prior to the meeting reconvening?

If so, can you point me to the reference in Robert's Rules?

Thank you.

 

 

[Josh Martin]

11 minutes ago, Guest Leanne said:

When a meeting of the general membership is adjourned to a fixed time (after having passed a number of motions), is it out of order for the chair and/or board to send out a letter declaring those motions invalid prior to the meeting reconvening?

Yes. The board does not have the authority to rule motions adopted by the membership out of order. At a meeting of the membership, the chair could rule the motions out of order (if it was due to a violation of the rules which caused a continuing breach), subject to appeal.

What was the stated reason why the motions were said to be invalid?

11 minutes ago, Guest Leanne said:

If so, can you point me to the reference in Robert's Rules?

“In any event, no action of the board can alter or conflict with any decision made by the assembly of the society, and any such action of the board is null and void (see p. 577, ll. 23–33). Except in matters placed by the bylaws exclusively under the control of the board, the society's assembly can give the board instructions which it must carry out, and can rescind or amend any action of the board if it is not too late (see 35).” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 483)

Edited May 1, 2019 at 02:55 AM by Josh Martin

[Guest Zev]

On a preliminary basis I would indicate that outside a meeting no such declaration would have any authority, but that during a meeting a Point Of Order may be raised about their validity and reasons given that may hold water but such event would probably depend on the nature of the motions, what subject they dealt with, and the resulting vote. Please provide some additional detail as to the nature of the motions and the suspected reasons why they would be declared invalid that may help in answering your question.

[Guest Leanne]

Thank you. Yes, that is most definitely another (and a very important) issue. There were a number of reasons provided as to why the motions were declared invalid, some stronger than others.

I've been asked, though, if there is anything in Robert's Rules about it being improper for business to be handled this way (or at all,  really) in the midst of a meeting that has been adjourned? Or is Robert's Rules silent on that?

[Guest Leanne]

 Is there anything in Robert's Rules that states that outside of a meeting, no such declaration would have any authority?

[Guest Leanne]

I'm having trouble seeing and posting messages: they keep disappearing and reappearing. My apologies if this is a repeat.

I understand the limits of the board's authority over motions of the general membership, but I've been (essentially) asked if there is anything in Robert's Rules that states that outside of a meeting, no such declaration would have any authority?

[Guest Leanne]

3 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

On a preliminary basis I would indicate that outside a meeting no such declaration would have any authority, but that during a meeting a Point Of Order may be raised about their validity and reasons given that may hold water but such event would probably depend on the nature of the motions, what subject they dealt with, and the resulting vote. Please provide some additional detail as to the nature of the motions and the suspected reasons why they would be declared invalid that may help in answering your question.

They indicated that some motions conflict with our bylaws, while also asserting that all motions must be sent out to the membership prior to the meeting. 

No, there is nothing in our bylaws requiring that. (I would note that the board, by and large, voted against these motions.)

[Josh Martin]

10 hours ago, Guest Leanne said:

I understand the limits of the board's authority over motions of the general membership, but I've been (essentially) asked if there is anything in Robert's Rules that states that outside of a meeting, no such declaration would have any authority?

As has already been stated, the board has no authority to overrule a decision of the membership. This is the case whether or not the decision is made because it is believed that the motions are not in order, and it is the case regardless of when the announcement is made.

As to the chairman, who does have the authority to rule a motion out of order, subject to appeal, during a meeting (although this requires a continuing breach if done after the fact), the text clearly provides “All of the duties of the presiding officer described above relate to the function of presiding over the assembly at its meetings. In addition, in many organized societies, the president has duties as an administrative or executive officer; but these are outside the scope of parliamentary law, and the president has such authority only insofar as the bylaws provide it.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 456, emphasis added)

One of the duties “described above,” which (as the rule notes) may only be performed during the assembly’s meetings, is to “To decide all questions of order (23), subject to appeal (24)—unless, when in doubt, the presiding officer prefers initially to submit such a question to the assembly for decision.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 450)

7 hours ago, Guest Leanne said:

They indicated that some motions conflict with our bylaws, while also asserting that all motions must be sent out to the membership prior to the meeting. 

No, there is nothing in our bylaws requiring that. (I would note that the board, by and large, voted against these motions.)

If it is in fact correct that some of the motions conflict with the bylaws, those motions are null and void. Notwithstanding this, however, a ruling regarding this matter may only be made at a meeting of the membership.

There is nothing in RONR requiring that “all motions must be sent out to the membership prior to the meeting,” and since you say this is not in your bylaws either, this is not legitimate grounds for ruling the motions out of order.

I would personally suggest that it might be time for some new board members. See FAQ #20.

[Guest Leanne]

4 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

As to the chairman, who does have the authority to rule a motion out of order, subject to appeal, during a meeting (although this requires a continuing breach if done after the fact), the text clearly provides “All of the duties of the presiding officer described above relate to the function of presiding over the assembly at its meetings. In addition, in many organized societies, the president has duties as an administrative or executive officer; but these are outside the scope of parliamentary law, and the president has such authority only insofar as the bylaws provide it.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 456, emphasis added)

One of the duties “described above,” which (as the rule notes) may only be performed during the assembly’s meetings, is to “To decide all questions of order (23), subject to appeal (24)—unless, when in doubt, the presiding officer prefers initially to submit such a question to the assembly for decision.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 450)

If it is in fact correct that some of the motions conflict with the bylaws, those motions are null and void. Notwithstanding this, however, a ruling regarding this matter may only be made at a meeting of the membership.

Thank you. Yes, I expect there is some confusion or misunderstanding on the part of the president and/or the board regarding their role(s).

4 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

There is nothing in RONR requiring that “all motions must be sent out to the membership prior to the meeting,” and since you say this is not in your bylaws either, this is not legitimate grounds for ruling the motions out of order.

Thank you. I hope the board's confidence in their statements doesn't get in the way of the general membership being able to perceive that it is overstepping its authority in a rather significant manner.

4 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I would personally suggest that it might be time for some new board members. See FAQ #20.

Indeed. And you only know about 1/100 of the reasons why it is time. Now if only people will step up and run.

Otherwise we truly do get what we deserve.

 

[Atul Kapur]

5 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

There is nothing in RONR requiring that “all motions must be sent out to the membership prior to the meeting,” and since you say this is not in your bylaws either, this is not legitimate grounds for ruling the motions out of order.

 

54 minutes ago, Guest Leanne said:

Thank you. I hope the board's confidence in their statements doesn't get in the way of the general membership being able to perceive that it is overstepping its authority in a rather significant manner.

It may be helpful to ask them to show exactly where in the rules or bylaws that requirement can be found. And don't let them off with vague answers like "it's there somewhere."

Edited May 1, 2019 at 06:58 PM by Atul Kapur
Added last sentence

[Guest Leanne]

48 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

 

It may be helpful to ask them to show exactly where in the rules or bylaws that requirement can be found. And don't let them off with vague answers like "it's there somewhere."

Yes, that will be very helpful. Thank you.