Speaking against a prior action or decision

[BabbsJohnson]

I am looking for, but having some trouble finding the text that states a member has the right to speak against a prior decision or action if the board had decided to discuss it, or if they plan on making a motion to reconsider the action (?)

 

Any help is appreciated 

Edited June 5, 2019 at 10:41 AM by .oOllXllOo.
Skipped a word!

[Chris Harrison]

Try page 393 ll. 12-17.

Edited June 5, 2019 at 11:21 AM by Chris Harrison

[BabbsJohnson]

Thank you 

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

I am looking for, but having some trouble finding the text that states a member has the right to speak against a prior decision or action if the board had decided to discuss it, or if they plan on making a motion to reconsider the action (?)

What RONR says on this subject is “In debate, a member cannot reflect adversely on any prior act of the society that is not then pending, unless a motion to reconsider, rescind, or amend it is pending, or unless he intends to conclude his remarks by making or giving notice of one of these motions.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 393)

So the fact the “the board had decided to discuss it” does not seem sufficient. The fact that the member plans on making a motion to Reconsider (or Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted if it’s too late for Reconsider) would be, so long as those plans involve concluding his remarks with making or giving notice of such a motion.

[BabbsJohnson]

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

What RONR says on this subject is “In debate, a member cannot reflect adversely on any prior act of the society that is not then pending, unless a motion to reconsider, rescind, or amend it is pending, or unless he intends to conclude his remarks by making or giving notice of one of these motions.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 393)

So the fact the “the board had decided to discuss it” does not seem sufficient. The fact that the member plans on making a motion to Reconsider (or Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted if it’s too late for Reconsider) would be, so long as those plans involve concluding his remarks with making or giving notice of such a motion.

Recently a proposed agreement was brought forth for all board members to sign,  that included an item that stated that if a board member disagreed with any resolution that the board may have previously implemented, that they would only bring it up in executive session, and consider it confidential information.

What I see first of all, is such an agreement may be asking board members to agree to violate state law in the future, since a past decision they wish to disagree with, may not fall within the authorized topics.

We do not have the ability to add to, or re-define those topics, if we did so, we would essentially taking false authority in attempting to re-define state law.

i also see this an attempt to remove the right to speak against a prior decision of the board,  if that member intended to make a motion for the board to rescind or reconsider the action, as you describe above.

 

What do you think?

 

[Josh Martin]

35 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Recently a proposed agreement was brought forth for all board members to sign,  that included an item that stated that if a board member disagreed with any resolution that the board may have previously implemented, that they would only bring it up in executive session, and consider it confidential information.

What I see first of all, is such an agreement may be asking board members to agree to violate state law in the future, since a past decision they wish to disagree with, may not fall within the authorized topics.

We do not have the ability to add to, or re-define those topics, if we did so, we would essentially taking false authority in attempting to re-define state law.

i also see this an attempt to remove the right to speak against a prior decision of the board,  if that member intended to make a motion for the board to rescind or reconsider the action, as you describe above.

What do you think?

Obviously it is not proper for an organization to adopt rules which conflict with applicable procedural rules in state law. (I am assuming for the sake of argument that your interpretation that the rule conflicts with the law is correct and not offering my own opinion on the meaning of the law.)

I am inclined to think that (if not for the legal issue) the rule in question could be adopted, but only by the membership, unless the board has been specifically authorized to adopt rules which supersede the parliamentary authority.

“Within this framework under the general parliamentary law, an assembly or society is free to adopt any rules it may wish (even rules deviating from parliamentary law) provided that, in the procedure of adopting them, it conforms to parliamentary law or its own existing rules. The only limitations upon the rules that such a body can thus adopt might arise from the rules of a parent body (as those of a national society restricting its state or local branches), or from national, state, or local law affecting the particular type of organization.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 10)

“The executive board of an organized society operates under the society's bylaws, the society's parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules of the society which may be applicable to it. Such a board may adopt its own special rules of order or standing rules only to the extent that such rules do not conflict with any of the rules of the society listed above.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 486)

Edited June 5, 2019 at 05:07 PM by Josh Martin