Rebecca S Posted September 19, 2019 at 02:32 PM Report Share Posted September 19, 2019 at 02:32 PM We have a motion that the Board voted unanimously on for the election committee to hire a parliamentarian to determine whether a member was eligible to run since there was a disagreement on the reading of the Bylaws on eligibility. The agreement by the Board was for both sides to send their documentation to the committee and the committee would handle sending it to the parliamentarian for an opinion. The problem came when one side presented their documentation and some on the Board considered it "unfair." It was in fact a different parliamentarian's opinion supporting that person's side on the eligibility debate. At this time the committee and now a faction of the Board are refusing to follow through with the original motion since this documentation does not include what they expected it to. What can you do if you do not have a majority vote to require completion of the motion after the original motion passed? Is there anything that can be done? The problem is that the time for nominations is quickly coming to a close and now multiple members are being denied eligibility based on the committee's interpretation of the Bylaws. The Board is basically split 6 to 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted September 19, 2019 at 03:25 PM Report Share Posted September 19, 2019 at 03:25 PM The bylaws could be amended to remove any ambiguity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted September 19, 2019 at 04:58 PM Report Share Posted September 19, 2019 at 04:58 PM (edited) 2 hours ago, Rebecca S said: We have a motion that the Board voted unanimously on for the election committee to hire a parliamentarian to determine whether a member was eligible to run since there was a disagreement on the reading of the Bylaws on eligibility. The agreement by the Board was for both sides to send their documentation to the committee and the committee would handle sending it to the parliamentarian for an opinion. The problem came when one side presented their documentation and some on the Board considered it "unfair." It was in fact a different parliamentarian's opinion supporting that person's side on the eligibility debate. At this time the committee and now a faction of the Board are refusing to follow through with the original motion since this documentation does not include what they expected it to. What can you do if you do not have a majority vote to require completion of the motion after the original motion passed? Is there anything that can be done? The problem is that the time for nominations is quickly coming to a close and now multiple members are being denied eligibility based on the committee's interpretation of the Bylaws. The Board is basically split 6 to 5. If the board now chooses not to hire a parliamentarian to provide advice on this matter, then I suppose no parliamentarian will be hired. The membership could provide instructions to the board, but presumably the membership will not meet soon enough to do this. I would note that the ultimate authority to interpret the bylaws rests with the society itself. In the interim, the board (and the election committee, if your rules give that committee a role in this) will need to interpret the rules as best as it can. 1 hour ago, Hieu H. Huynh said: The bylaws could be amended to remove any ambiguity. Yes, but it is doubtful this can be done in time to help with the current situation. Edited September 19, 2019 at 05:00 PM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted September 19, 2019 at 08:57 PM Report Share Posted September 19, 2019 at 08:57 PM If the board is the highest authority in this society all it needs to do is discharge the committee from further consideration of this question and decide for themselves what to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted September 19, 2019 at 09:47 PM Report Share Posted September 19, 2019 at 09:47 PM The board passed a motion directing the procedure to be followed. They now do not want to follow that procedure. They should make a motion to Rescind the original motion, rather than just ignore it. Otherwise, they should follow through with the motion that was passed. Any other course of action will likely lead to complaints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted September 19, 2019 at 10:48 PM Report Share Posted September 19, 2019 at 10:48 PM 54 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said: The board passed a motion directing the procedure to be followed. They now do not want to follow that procedure. They should make a motion to Rescind the original motion, rather than just ignore it. Otherwise, they should follow through with the motion that was passed. Any other course of action will likely lead to complaints. I agree that, as a procedural matter, the correct course of action for the board to take if it no longer wishes to hire a parliamentarian for advice on the bylaws is to rescind the original motion. The motion to Rescind requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership (of the board), or a majority vote with previous notice. I rather doubt, however, that formally rescinding the motion will stop the complaints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted September 19, 2019 at 10:53 PM Report Share Posted September 19, 2019 at 10:53 PM I tried to be careful. I said any other action would likely lead to complaints. I did not say that this action would prevent complaints.😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts