Over riding a BOD's motion

[Pauls]

Hi!!

 

We are a small Club with 450 voting members. The Board of 9 has passed a motion. At the Clubs General meeting this motion could be over turned. So my question is, how many votes from the floor are needed? Majority or 2/3 thirds?  

Thank you!!!

 

[Josh Martin]

5 minutes ago, Pauls said:

We are a small Club with 450 voting members. The Board of 9 has passed a motion. At the Clubs General meeting this motion could be over turned. So my question is, how many votes from the floor are needed? Majority or 2/3 thirds?  

A motion to Rescind can be adopted by any of the following:

1) A majority vote, if previous notice has been given of the motion either orally at the previous regular meeting or in writing in the call of the meeting.

2) A 2/3 vote.

3) A vote of a majority of the entire membership.

[Guest Zev]

I am not entirely sure about this. The reason is that the original motion is the board's motion and not any motion by the assembly. Had the motion in question been adopted by the assembly rather than the board then Mr. Martin's observation would have sufficed for me. Declaring the board's motion to be null, although similar to the motion to Rescind, would be a regular main motion requiring only a majority vote without notice. However, I am willing to be persuaded otherwise.

[Richard Brown]

8 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

I am not entirely sure about this. The reason is that the original motion is the board's motion and not any motion by the assembly. Had the motion in question been adopted by the assembly rather than the board then Mr. Martin's observation would have sufficed for me. Declaring the board's motion to be null, although similar to the motion to Rescind, would be a regular main motion requiring only a majority vote without notice. However, I am willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Well, Official Interpretation 2006-13 by the authorship team addresses this question and says exactly what Mr. Martin said.  https://robertsrules.com/official-interpretations/

 

[George Mervosh]

9 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

I am not entirely sure about this. The reason is that the original motion is the board's motion and not any motion by the assembly. Had the motion in question been adopted by the assembly rather than the board then Mr. Martin's observation would have sufficed for me. Declaring the board's motion to be null, although similar to the motion to Rescind, would be a regular main motion requiring only a majority vote without notice. However, I am willing to be persuaded otherwise.

I was thinking 49:7?

[Richard Brown]

8 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

I was thinking 49:7?

I would say 35:2 (#7)  "The same vote is required for the assembly to rescind or amend an action taken by subordinate bodies, such as some executive boards, empowered to act on behalf of the assembly."

 

Edited April 16, 2021 at 08:24 PM by Richard Brown
Added pertinent text from 35:2 (7)

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

I am not entirely sure about this. The reason is that the original motion is the board's motion and not any motion by the assembly. Had the motion in question been adopted by the assembly rather than the board then Mr. Martin's observation would have sufficed for me. Declaring the board's motion to be null, although similar to the motion to Rescind, would be a regular main motion requiring only a majority vote without notice. However, I am willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Assuming the motion in question was validly adopted by the board by exercising its authority to act on behalf of the society, the situation is the same as if the society itself had adopted the motion. The procedure to overturn the motion is to adopt a motion to Rescind and it has the same voting requirements as it would if the motion was adopted by the society itself.

If an organization wishes to adopt rules which make it easier to overturn decisions adopted by its subordinate board, it is free to do so, but the rule in RONR is clear.

Edited April 16, 2021 at 09:41 PM by Josh Martin

[Pauls]

I want to thank everyone that responded. This is a big help!!

[Pauls]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

35:2 (#7)

I am try to find this section. Could you please help me to find it?

[Pauls]

17 minutes ago, Pauls said:

I am try to find this section. Could you please help me to find it?

I found it. thank you all! 

[Guest Zev]

And I thank you as well.

[Guest Puzzling]

16 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Assuming the motion in question was validly adopted by the board by exercising its authority to act on behalf of the society

This does not have to be the case.

Members can ask a ruling from the president by moving  a "point of order" .

If the ruling is unreasonable an "appeal" can be made.

[Richard Brown]

6 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

This does not have to be the case.

Members can ask a ruling from the president by moving  a "point of order" .

I don't follow you.  Please explain what you are getting at.  There is nothing to rule out of order if the motion adopted by the board was properly adopted.   What exactly is the point of order that you say can be raised? 

If the motion adopted by the board was properly adopted, the motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted is the proper method for changing or "undoing" it.

If the board acted without authority, then a point of order that the board acted without authority could be raised at a general membership meeting, but the whole premise of the original question seems to be that the board acted with authority.  Nothing in the original post even hints that the board acted without authority.

6 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

If the ruling is unreasonable an "appeal" can be made.

That is not a correct statement of when an appeal from the ruling of the chair can be taken.  Appeals can be taken from perfectly reasonable rulings of the chair. There is no requirement that the ruling of the chair be "unreasonable" in order to appeal.  24:1 - 24:4 (RONR 12th ed.)

[Guest Puzzling]

11 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I don't follow you.  Please explain what you are getting at.  There is nothing to rule out of order if the motion adopted by the board was properly adopted.   What exactly is the point of order that you say can be raised? 

If the motion adopted by the board was properly adopted, the motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted is the proper method for changing or "undoing" it.

If the board acted without authority, then a point of order that the board acted without authority could be raised at a general membership meeting, but the whole premise of the original question seems to be that the board acted with authority.  Nothing in the original post even hints that the board acted without authority.

That is not a correct statement of when an appeal from the ruling of the chair can be taken.  Appeals can be taken from perfectly reasonable rulings of the chair. There is no requirement that the ruling of the chair be "unreasonable" in order to appeal.  24:1 - 24:4 (RONR 12th ed.)

The original question does not contain the premise that the board operated within their authority, while the board only has the authority the bylaws or assembly grants it. (But all subsequent posts assumed it,and it not mention this possibility)

The only way that the president can reasonably rule in appeal that the board was allowed to adopt the motion is to point at such a bylaw provision or motion of the assembly.

If the president can do this, members cannot appeal that ruling (dilatory  appeal (RONR 24:3 2) b )

 

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

The original question does not contain the premise that the board operated within their authority, while the board only has the authority the bylaws or assembly grants it. (But all subsequent posts assumed it,and it not mention this possibility)

The only way that the president can reasonably rule in appeal that the board was allowed to adopt the motion is to point at such a bylaw provision or motion of the assembly.

If the president can do this, members cannot appeal that ruling (dilatory  appeal (RONR 24:3 2) b )

It certainly is correct that if the board did not act within its authority, the procedure for overturning the board's motion is different.

Your description of how "reasonableness" factors into a Point of Order or Appeal, however, leaves something to be desired. What RONR actually says on this subject is "when the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed." RONR (12th ed.) 24:3

You first summarized this as "If the ruling is unreasonable an "appeal" can be made." and then as "The only way that the president can reasonably rule in appeal that the board was allowed to adopt the motion is to point at such a bylaw provision or motion of the assembly. If the president can do this, members cannot appeal that ruling (dilatory  appeal (RONR 24:3 2) b )" Neither of these statements is quite correct.

Certainly if the chair's ruling is so clearly wrong that it is unreasonable an appeal can and should be raised, and certainly it is correct that a chair's ruling on a question of whether the board has the authority to take an action should be based upon the organization's rules pertaining to the board's authority.

It may well be, however, that there are rules pertaining to this subject which are ambiguous and that, as a result, there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the rule in question. As a result, the fact that the chair's ruling is "reasonable" or that the chair's ruling is based upon the assembly's rules pertaining to the board's authority does not necessarily mean an appeal would be dilatory.

Edited April 18, 2021 at 12:32 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Puzzling]

Was very tired yesterday, sorry that my writing did not always have the clarity reader deserve, and thanks for the losson