star1441 Posted October 24, 2020 at 10:17 PM Report Share Posted October 24, 2020 at 10:17 PM A motion was on the Board's agenda. It asked the Board to act on a policy matter. After a discussion, the president ordered the motion sent to the Finance Committee. It had to do with a financial matter (depositing some money in a Black owned bank to show our organization's support, but there was no expense. Just moving funds from our bank, no cost, and no risk---the amount was kept under the FDIC insurance limit). There was no motion to punt instead of deciding, and of course no vote. Not on the motion itself, and not on sending it to a committee. Just an instruction from the president to the executive secretary. Is this a proper procedure, a correct action? Thanks Yoram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 24, 2020 at 10:34 PM Report Share Posted October 24, 2020 at 10:34 PM 2 minutes ago, star1441 said: A motion was on the Board's agenda. It asked the Board to act on a policy matter. After a discussion, the president ordered the motion sent to the Finance Committee. It had to do with a financial matter (depositing some money in a Black owned bank to show our organization's support, but there was no expense. Just moving funds from our bank, no cost, and no risk---the amount was kept under the FDIC insurance limit). There was no motion to punt instead of deciding, and of course no vote. Not on the motion itself, and not on sending it to a committee. Just an instruction from the president to the executive secretary. Is this a proper procedure, a correct action? Thanks Yoram Probably not, unless your governing documents give the president the unilateral authority to take such actions. Otherwise, after the motion and discussion, the motion should have been put to a vote. However, is it possible that the motion was adopted by unanimous consent, without having to be put to a formal vote? If the president said something like, "well, it sounds like we are all in agreement so if there is no objection that is what we will do. Mr. Executive Secretary, please open the new account and make the transfer". If nobody objected or raised a point of order, it was done by unanimous consent. If you are of the opinion that the action was not properly authorized, you can raise a point of order at the next meeting that the action is invalid. The chair should rule on the point of order. If you disagree with his ruling, you can appeal to the assembly if someone seconds your appeal. But, as a practical matter, is the president likely to agree with your point of order and are the rest of the members likely to agree with you if the president rules against you? And, if the transfer has already been made, a motion may need to be adopted to transfer the money back to the former bank. If the point of order method fails, you can always make a motion to close the account and transfer the funds back to the original account. A motion to rescind will work if the funds have not yet been transferred, but if the transfer has already taken place, you will need to make a new motion reopen the old account, transfer the money back to it, etc. BTW, you said there was just the instruction from the president to the executive secretary. Exactly what was that instruction? I'm assuming it was an instruction to make the transfer, but you have not said so explicitly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted October 24, 2020 at 10:56 PM Report Share Posted October 24, 2020 at 10:56 PM While it is true that small boards do not observe the patterns of formality to the degree necessary in larger assemblies, it appears that the informality in this board is too much of a good thing and lapses into confusion and disorderly chaos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star1441 Posted October 25, 2020 at 12:15 AM Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2020 at 12:15 AM Thank you gentlemen. And Richard- you are too generous. Yes, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO A VOTE. But it was not. That is why I posted to the Forum. There was no CONSENT. Only punting. Head in the sand. The president told the Ex Sec to put the matter on the Finance Committee's agenda. Not to transfer funds. No funds were transferred. Nothing was done. As Rob Elsman wrote- CHAOS. Background: The Board started discussing how to help Black communities back in JULY. Speeches, proposals ("hire a diversity consultant...") but nothing done. Zero. When this simple proposal comes along- inaction and passing off. Ain't democracy wonneful? Y Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 25, 2020 at 05:43 PM Report Share Posted October 25, 2020 at 05:43 PM (edited) 19 hours ago, star1441 said: Just an instruction from the president to the executive secretary. Is this a proper procedure, a correct action? No. If there is still a desire to act on this motion, I would suggest making the motion again at the next board meeting, and next time be ready to raise a Point of Order and Appeal if the President tries this stunt again. If the board itself wishes to "punt" on this matter, as you put it, there are a number of parliamentary tools to achieve that objective, but such decisions are to be made by the board, by majority vote or unanimous consent, not by the President acting unilaterally. Edited October 25, 2020 at 05:48 PM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted October 25, 2020 at 09:42 PM Report Share Posted October 25, 2020 at 09:42 PM It sounds like the nearest parliamentary procedure is the motion to Commit. The president effectively referred the motion to the Finance Committee. If no one objected (by raising a point of order) at the time, then it was done without objection. The proper procedure from here would be to have the Finance Committee consider the motion and come back to the board with a recommendation. If the president's purpose was to "bury" the motion, then the Finance Committee is unlikely to report back. If they do not, then the proper motion would be to Discharge a Committee (Section 36) to take the motion out of the committee's hands and place it back on the board's agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star1441 Posted April 24, 2021 at 06:50 AM Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2021 at 06:50 AM UPDATE AND RESOLUTION- After I had enough fighting leadership's [ha] foot dragging, punting and sandbagging, I took the motion to the General Membership meeting. The support was solid- 36 Yays, 8 Noes. A year after first raising the idea, we deposited a million dollars in a CD held at a Black Owned Bank. Yoram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted April 24, 2021 at 03:25 PM Report Share Posted April 24, 2021 at 03:25 PM @star1441thank you for the update. Glad it worked out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted April 25, 2021 at 01:58 AM Report Share Posted April 25, 2021 at 01:58 AM 10 hours ago, Richard Brown said: @star1441thank you for the update. Glad it worked out! Well, it worked out for one of the banks; not so much for the other. 🙂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star1441 Posted April 25, 2021 at 03:12 AM Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2021 at 03:12 AM It is not "for the bank". When you deposit the bank can lend. This particular bank lends to communities that need loans, badly, private and small business. Everyone wins. That is why I bypassed the organization's "leadership", went directly to the membership, and they understood and supported, decisively. Rabbi Hillel would've approved. Yoram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts