Prevention of Participation in Order?

[Guest JMK]

I've read that no suspension of the rules can be used to prevent a member from attending, moving motions, debating, or voting. I've also read that a chair can refuse a motion (call it out of order) for various reasons (i.e. a contradicting bylaw, and a few others), or for no reason at all. Our society has a chair that refuses to add even discussion items that could lead to a motion to the agenda (discussion follows motions), so members turn their topics into motions for the agenda, and he calls those out of order too, even though they have followed RR and our bylaws. He also generally refuses motions from the floor of any kind, time for debate is not included on the agenda (this upcoming meeting has 3-6 minutes allotted only for "questions" about 7 reports). The chair and our VP further claim that GMs (general member meetings) are not for the debate and discussion of the general members, citing efficiency and difficulties of being a large society. There are two ambiguously relevant clauses in our bylaws that place yet further constraints on member participation: it must be presented via motion (with exact wording) at least 14 days before a GM. The effect of this has been that there is rarely (if ever) even discussion, let alone questions or debate. Members are trying by various means to be granted access to the meeting agenda and motions and are almost always denied. Are these restrictions on general membership participation at a general membership meeting in order?

[Atul Kapur]

There's a lot going on here. If you feel rules are not being followed, then you can raise a point of order. If the ruling is against you, then you can appeal from the decision of the chair. This appeal needs to be seconded and requires a majority vote to overturn the chair's ruling.

This is something that you want to discuss with other members to ensure that there will be someone to second your appeal and that others will understand what you're doing and participate. Otherwise you take the risk that the other members will vote to support the chair just because they are unfamiliar with what you are doing.

[Rob Elsman]

7 hours ago, Guest JMK said:

...or for no reason at all

Whoever told you this is full of bull. ☹️

[Rob Elsman]

I can sum this up with a pretty short answer.  The person who is in the chair has no business to be there; however, in the meanwhile, take a look at the paragraphs on remedies to the abuse of the chair's authority, RONR (12th ed.) 62:2-15.  Be sure to get hold of this particular edition of the book, which has been worked on by the authors.

It might be worthwhile to censure this person for the abuses mentioned.  The chair should take this censure as a shot across the bow that the assembly intends to enforce the rules, even if this means deposing the chair through a disciplinary procedure, as regrettable as that would be.

[Joshua Katz]

13 hours ago, Guest JMK said:

I've also read that a chair can refuse a motion (call it out of order) for various reasons (i.e. a contradicting bylaw, and a few others), or for no reason at all.

The bolded portion is not correct. (Well, I guess he can do so, but he has no right to do so.)

13 hours ago, Guest JMK said:

Our society has a chair that refuses to add even discussion items that could lead to a motion to the agenda (discussion follows motions), so members turn their topics into motions for the agenda, and he calls those out of order too, even though they have followed RR and our bylaws.

It sounds to me like the organization has large difficulties with the rules of order. But let's start here - in general, there is no need to have an agenda. If it is desired to have one, it may be drafted by the chair, but the body itself adopts the agenda. While it is pending for adoption, it may be amended.

14 hours ago, Guest JMK said:

The chair and our VP further claim that GMs (general member meetings) are not for the debate and discussion of the general members, citing efficiency and difficulties of being a large society.

Then what, pray tell, are they for, and what is the proper forum for members to debate, discuss, and conduct business? Efficiency does not counsel against the conduct of business - rather, it calls for the use of rules to keep business efficient while also protecting rights, namely, rules of order.

The purpose of meetings should be explained to the chair outside of a meeting. If the behavior persists, he should be disciplined and/or removed.

Given the apparent size of the organization, it would also be helpful, it sounds like, if everyone knew the rules better, so I would suggest hiring a PRP to conduct a seminar.

What's going on right now violates rights and, in effect, means that the members cannot conduct any business, leaving the board in charge without the members having a check.

 

 

 

[Guest Zev]

7 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

What's going on right now violates rights and, in effect, means that the members cannot conduct any business, leaving the board in charge without the members having a check.

I would counsel Mr. JMK to read carefully the bylaws, and perhaps a meeting with the presiding officer, in an effort to try to understand the conceivable way in which he has come to the conclusion that his current behavior is consistent with current parliamentary practice. It is possible that when shown the bylaws and this book (RONR) he may be disabused of his previous opinions and be more amenable to something more constructive. The thing that worries me is that I do not know what the bylaws say is the limits of the board's authority which may be playing a role in all of this. So, try to see things from his point of view. But if the bylaws are clear that the general membership have authority which is being subverted, then explain to him the probable consequences of continuing down this path. Try speaking to someone in this organization that he will listen to. Exhaust every possibility before taking drastic action. Consider also what the probable consequences are of engaging in this struggle or abandoning the fight to someone else. Only you can make that determination. The opinions of the general membership are going to have a huge impact. If they are confused or unwilling to take action then you may be trying to climb a very high mountain. Good luck.

[Guest JMK]

On 10/24/2020 at 11:59 PM, Guest JMK said:

I've read that no suspension of the rules can be used to prevent a member from attending, moving motions, debating, or voting. ...Are these restrictions on general membership participation at a general membership meeting in order?

Thank you, everyone, for your feedback. It's really helpful. I'm trying to learn the rules better myself, so that I can initiate the opportunity for debate on the purpose of our GMs... in our upcoming GM this Wednesday.

 

Can anyone clarify whether any bylaw that limits member main motions and debate is in order, (not explicitly but effectively nearly entirely barring participation at meetings)? *How much limitation can be put into a society's bylaws before a general meeting no longer meets the requirements of a GM?

 

I'll try looking at our province's Societies Act as well.

 

Our bylaws don't explicitly deny members ability to make "motions," but they do say that members can make "proposals" with some details, including being required 7 days before "notice of the meeting" is sent out. We never know in advance when this is going to happen, but it will be at least 2 weeks in advance, probably about 3 in practice. (We are a school and have a GM each term, one every 4 months). It requires exact wording of any motions and both a mover and a seconder.

 

**This question about membership limitations more specifically, Can the chair refuse motions from members to add items to the agenda while it is pending, based on this bylaw limiting "proposals"? I can see this being the reason offered. Thoughts?

 

Thank you for the pointers about how to challenge the chair's decision. I can try that . I'll also try talking to other members about the rules before the meeting.

 

 

 

[Guest JMK]

On 10/25/2020 at 2:47 AM, Atul Kapur said:

There's a lot going on here. If you feel rules are not being followed, then you can raise a point of order. If the ruling is against you, then you can appeal from the decision of the chair. This appeal needs to be seconded and requires a majority vote to overturn the chair's ruling.

Thanks for this. And if the appeal fails, can we then call for the rules to be suspended to allow for the item to come under consideration at the GM?

[Bruce Lages]

2 hours ago, Guest JMK said:

Can anyone clarify whether any bylaw that limits member main motions and debate is in order, (not explicitly but effectively nearly entirely barring participation at meetings)? *How much limitation can be put into a society's bylaws before a general meeting no longer meets the requirements of a GM?

 

I'll try looking at our province's Societies Act as well.

 

Your organization can put any rules you want into your bylaws, including rules that override the rules in your adopted parliamentary authority. What cannot be put in your bylaws would be rules that conflict with procedural elements contained in local, state, or federal laws. So, yes, rules that restrict members' rights to make motions and/or debate can be added to your bylaws, as long as the procedure contained in the bylaws for their amendment is followed.

It will also be wise to look at your provincial acts for anything related to procedure that might apply to your organization - you cannot amend the bylaws to include anything that conflicts with procedural rules contained in those acts.

2 hours ago, Guest JMK said:

This question about membership limitations more specifically, Can the chair refuse motions from members to add items to the agenda while it is pending, based on this bylaw limiting "proposals"? I can see this being the reason offered. Thoughts?

 

That will be up to your organization to determine. I don't think that action by the chair would be completely unreasonable, based on that bylaw, but that decision should be made by the membership, by raising a point of order if the chair does refuse motions from the members, and, if necessary, appealing the chair's decision (requires a second). The membership, by a majority vote, will either uphold the chair's ruling or overrule that ruling. You should also act quickly to amend the bylaws to remove any ambiguities in the language of these bylaw provisions.

I don't see in your responses above where you have shown the procedure specified in your bylaws for their amendment. If they follow the procedure outlined in RONR, then your general membership should be the entity with the authority to approve amendments. If that is the case, then let's hope that they are wise enough to reject any overt attempts to deprive them of their rights as members by adding such restrictive rules to the bylaws.

[Guest JMK]

Thank you for the clarification. This is really helpful. I think we may be amidst a defining moment for the society. It used to be much more open to participation, which is part of why it's so confusing. But thanks again. Clearer understanding of the rules is so valuable.

[Atul Kapur]

3 hours ago, Guest JMK said:

Thanks for this. And if the appeal fails, can we then call for the rules to be suspended to allow for the item to come under consideration at the GM?

Although those are two different questions (so people who disagree with your interpretation of the rules may support a suspension of those rules), I think that, realistically, if the appeal fails it would be unlikely that you'd get a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules.

3 hours ago, Guest JMK said:

This question about membership limitations more specifically, Can the chair refuse motions from members to add items to the agenda while it is pending, based on this bylaw limiting "proposals"? I can see this being the reason offered. Thoughts?

Depending on the exact wording of the bylaws, yes this could be a reason for the chair to properly reject the proposals/motions.

[Josh Martin]

13 hours ago, Guest JMK said:

Can anyone clarify whether any bylaw that limits member main motions and debate is in order, (not explicitly but effectively nearly entirely barring participation at meetings)?

Yes.

"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 (12th ed.) 2:2

13 hours ago, Guest JMK said:

How much limitation can be put into a society's bylaws before a general meeting no longer meets the requirements of a GM?

I don't know what you mean by this. What "requirements of a GM" are you referring to? There is not any inherent reason that a society's general membership meetings must meet any particular requirements or even that a society have general membership meetings at all. As noted above, a society is free under the general parliamentary law to adopt any rules it may wish. If you are referring to requirements in your bylaws, the society may amend its bylaws to modify or remove those requirements. If you are referring to requirements in applicable law, that is a question for an attorney.

13 hours ago, Guest JMK said:

Our bylaws don't explicitly deny members ability to make "motions," but they do say that members can make "proposals" with some details, including being required 7 days before "notice of the meeting" is sent out. We never know in advance when this is going to happen, but it will be at least 2 weeks in advance, probably about 3 in practice. (We are a school and have a GM each term, one every 4 months). It requires exact wording of any motions and both a mover and a seconder.

Okay, then apparently these are the rules which must be followed.

13 hours ago, Guest JMK said:

Can the chair refuse motions from members to add items to the agenda while it is pending, based on this bylaw limiting "proposals"?

It would seem entirely reasonable to me that the chair can and should refuse to permit members to add items to the agenda, except if such items have met the requirements in the bylaws, which include "being required 7 days before "notice of the meeting" is sent out." While it is ultimately up to the society to interpret its own bylaws, it seems to me that a proposal and a motion are effectively the same thing, unless there is something in the rules specifically indicating otherwise.

"A motion is a formal proposal by a member, in a meeting, that the assembly take certain action." RONR (12th ed.) 3:22

So if a member wishes to propose something, provide the notice which is required in your bylaws. If you think this is a dumb rule, seek to amend the bylaws (which probably also requires previous notice).

13 hours ago, Guest JMK said:

Thanks for this. And if the appeal fails, can we then call for the rules to be suspended to allow for the item to come under consideration at the GM?

Based on the additional facts, no. A rule which requires previous notice is a rule protecting absentees. Such rules may not be suspended (unless all members are present).

Edited October 27, 2020 at 02:12 PM by Josh Martin