Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
Guest Mum

Has anyone ever encountered this?

Recommended Posts

Guest Mum

A group that’s required to use RONR, takes the following action, without a motion:

all but one member gives up all their rights, and assigns all power of the group to the Chair.

They basically say with that action: the Chair speaks for us

The goal of the group is to get rid of a member they do not like

They can’t have that member having any rights, so the Chair disposes of RONR, and abuses that one member at will, violating their rights as if they do not exist.

It doesn’t matter to the group if it’s bullying, or unfair, they see this as democracy, since the Chair is carrying out the will of the group, in doing whatever it takes to eliminate that one member. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The expulsion of a member requires either a trial and two-thirds vote or the operation of some provision in the governing documents.

RONR does not address members' appointment of the presiding officer to act as agent for the society. I think you need to seek an attorney's help with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mum
23 minutes ago, reelsman said:

The expulsion of a member requires either a trial and two-thirds vote or the operation of some provision in the governing documents.

RONR does not address members' appointment of the presiding officer to act as agent for the society. I think you need to seek an attorney's help with that.

I’m wondering if it’s even possible for them to give the president that level of power if it’s not given in the by laws, but if the president is under control of the board, and that’s what the majority wills...

It seems circular in a way...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the majority (not 2/3?) their proper course of action is to amend the bylaws to give the chancellor president all the power. 

Last time I "encountered" this was in History Class, most notably in Germany in 1933.  We know how that came out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Member rights to vote, speak, etc., are not transferable.  This is essentially proxy voting which is prohibited by RONR to the greatest extent permissible by law.

Edited by Gary Novosielski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Guest Mum said:

A group that’s required to use RONR, takes the following action, without a motion:

all but one member gives up all their rights, and assigns all power of the group to the Chair.

They basically say with that action: the Chair speaks for us

The goal of the group is to get rid of a member they do not like

They can’t have that member having any rights, so the Chair disposes of RONR, and abuses that one member at will, violating their rights as if they do not exist.

It doesn’t matter to the group if it’s bullying, or unfair, they see this as democracy, since the Chair is carrying out the will of the group, in doing whatever it takes to eliminate that one member. 

You need to take this to a higher authority, such as the general membership, or the courts. Yes, obviously this is improper (as are many of the assembly’s other actions), but the assembly clearly does not care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mum
18 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

You need to take this to a higher authority, such as the general membership, or the courts. Yes, obviously this is improper (as are many of the assembly’s other actions), but the assembly clearly does not care.

 Personally I feel that for the chair to get into that position and then basically spend a lot of time denigrating RONR, and telling the other members it’s pointless, and not necessary, and that they don’t want to use it, is abusive of that position...and then to have other people who also have no respect or knowledge of RONR, but are in trust positions, saying that they don’t have to, and agreeing with the Chair just exacerbates the situation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zev

Would it make any difference if you concentrated any Points Of Order only to items that actually violated member's rights in some way rather than were just procedural in nature? I get the sense that you are trying to correct too many items, in an honest and good-hearted way, but that these "horses" are just not going to "drink the water."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Guest Mum said:

Personally I feel that for the chair to get into that position and then basically spend a lot of time denigrating RONR, and telling the other members it’s pointless, and not necessary, and that they don’t want to use it, is abusive of that position...and then to have other people who also have no respect or knowledge of RONR, but are in trust positions, saying that they don’t have to, and agreeing with the Chair just exacerbates the situation.

Yes, I agree.

I don’t think this changes my response. It seems to reinforce it.

Edited by Josh Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The responsibility for electing a competent presiding officer rests with the electors. The assembly will merely reap what it has sown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mum

So...wait

The things described...

Declarations of “well all agree” on changing, suspending, disregarding any of RONR as stated by the Chair without any motions, and without explicit unanimous consent

the Chair claiming the power decide if and which RONR or elements of it will be used is at their discretion

the Chair stating (with no motion for any special rules to be passed) that decorum will not be enforced, and that debate rules will not be kept or acknowledged...

The Chair openly violating and/or ignoring the rules of debate, and allowing others to

The Chair applying (incorrect or skewed) enforcement of rules towards one member, but not the others, or themselves 

The Chair openly violating decorum, and allowing others to do so, and especially allow it when, let’s say, violations of decorum are directed at a specific member...

The chair stating no interest in the words of experts regarding parliamentary procedure, and encouraging others to share all the above views and attitudes...

The Chair refusing to even look at, never mind perform the duties of the Chair, as defined by RONR...

In your opinions firstly as parliamentarians, secondly as reasonable adult humans...

Would none, some, most, or all of these actions, as described above, constitute abuse of power, and/or abuse of the position and role of the Chair?  

Would anyone venture to say that any of it, on its own, or cumulatively, amounts to Tyranny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say all of it is a pretty good definition of (petty) tyranny  --  at least nobody has been rounded up (yet) and sent off to camp.

It is only a tyranny to the extent you are willing to be tyrannized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mum
1 hour ago, jstackpo said:

I'd say all of it is a pretty good definition of (petty) tyranny  --  at least nobody has been rounded up (yet) and sent off to camp.

It is only a tyranny to the extent you are willing to be tyrannized.

So is it safe to say that, if tyranny, then power abuse?

Meaning: saying tyranny is power abuse, and that it’s more severe than just saying “power abuse”.

Following that, is it possible for an entire board to, in some official way, allow for this kind of abuse, and to this extent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2019 at 2:11 AM, Guest Mum said:

In your opinions firstly as parliamentarians, secondly as reasonable adult humans...

Would none, some, most, or all of these actions, as described above, constitute abuse of power, and/or abuse of the position and role of the Chair?  

Would anyone venture to say that any of it, on its own, or cumulatively, amounts to Tyranny?

“Tyranny” is a strong word, but yes, I would certainly say the actions described above, taken together, constitute abuse of power and/or abuse of the position and role of the chair.

But we have no power to do anything in this regard and are not the people you need to convince. You have previously indicated the board apparently doesn’t care about the chair’s actions. So as I stated above, these matters will need to be taken to a higher authority - the general membership or the courts.

As to whether it is possible for the board to permit this, it is obviously possible because it is happening. I do not think it is proper for the board to permit such behavior by the chair, but again, I can’t make them do anything about it. So talk to the people who do have power in this regard.

Edited by Josh Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...