Past practice and right to vote

[Guest cmc]

Good Morning,

 I know that this feed is very old, but my question is worth a try due to an upcoming election. 

1) Can you make a motion to fix a Constitution or bylaws when an election is underway? 

2) Our past practice has been that staff must pay to vote, be nominated or accept a nomination. We do not have this in our newly adopted bylaws or any words about "good standing" AND this rule was not in writing within the old bylaws. The elected officials are indicating that even the Nominating Committee and Treasurer put out a dues date in several emails, the minutes that Secretary took had a later date. We are being told that "5" people that paid late are being allowed to vote, despite the fact that all correspondence indicated an earlier date.

I pointed out the following at the last meeting and made a point of order that there is a problem. I read aloud the following:

With that, I researched and came across Robert's Rules indicating that, "If a member has not been dropped from the rolls and is not under disciplinary action, the member still has the full rights of membership, including the right to vote, unless the bylaws specifically address this situation." 

The elected officials are saying that past practice/custom/tradition supersedes the bylaws and Constitution. Could that be correct?

Westside Law indicates that, "Once it is pointed out that the custom contravenes the bylaws, the custom "falls to the ground" no matter how long the custom has been practiced, the by laws rule." 

I would think that when the bylaws do not specify or speak to the issue, then in order to follow proper parliamentary procedure, then one must follow Robert's Rules of Order.

I am being told..... no. Past practice rules. Is this correct?

FYI- 1) We need a 2/3 majority vote to amend the Constitution.

2) We need a written copy of the proposed amendment presented to members at a regular meeting to amend the bylaws. 

Can any motion fix this in when an election is underway, anyway?

[Richard Brown]

30 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

The elected officials are saying that past practice/custom/tradition supersedes the bylaws and Constitution. Could that be correct?

No, that is not correct. The Constitution, bylaws, and written rules prevail. Custom should fall to the ground if a point of order is raised that it conflicts with a written rule.

32 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

Westside Law indicates that, "Once it is pointed out that the custom contravenes the bylaws, the custom "falls to the ground" no matter how long the custom has been practiced, the by laws rule." 

I don’t know what “Westside Law“ is, perhaps you meant “Westlaw“.  However, the statement is correct.

34 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

I would think that when the bylaws do not specify or speak to the issue, then in order to follow proper parliamentary procedure, then one must follow Robert's Rules of Order.

I am being told..... no. Past practice rules. Is this correct?

No. As I have already said twice, custom falls to the ground when it is in conflict with your bylaws or other written rules or with the rules in your parliamentary authority.

[Josh Martin]

56 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

1) Can you make a motion to fix a Constitution or bylaws when an election is underway? 

I assume by "fix" you mean "amend."

If so, the fact that an election is underway does not prohibit the organization from amending its bylaws, even those portions of the bylaws which relate to the elections. Depending on what the procedure for amending the bylaws requires, however, it may or may not be possible as a practical matter to complete that process in time to affect the current elections.

56 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

The elected officials are saying that past practice/custom/tradition supersedes the bylaws and Constitution. Could that be correct?

No. Quite the opposite.

"However, if a customary practice is or becomes in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a Point of Order (23) citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with. If it is then desired to follow the former practice, a special rule of order (or, in appropriate circumstances, a standing rule or a bylaw provision) can be added or amended to incorporate it." RONR (12th ed.) 2:25

In this case, RONR provides that a provision in the bylaws is required, as you have discovered.

57 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

FYI- 1) We need a 2/3 majority vote to amend the Constitution.

2) We need a written copy of the proposed amendment presented to members at a regular meeting to amend the bylaws. 

Can any motion fix this in when an election is underway, anyway?

Yes, a motion to amend the bylaws to address this issue is in order, notwithstanding the fact that it will affect an election which is currently underway.

Whether the organization should amend the bylaws in a way which will affect an election which is currently ongoing is a separate question, which will be for the organization to decide for itself.

[Guest cmc]

Thank you for your responses.

Bottomline, past practice does not supersede bylaws, the Constitution or Robert's Rules of Order. 

However, past practice does apply to contracts and negotiations it seems. Is there a difference that could explain past practice with negotiations for contracts versus bylaws; Constitution and Robert's Rules? 

The problems came from virtual meetings and many not having the minutes in front of them. So, the claim is that a motion was made on the minutes to approve them but there were erroneous dates that were not caught. Would this trump all and STAND even after making a point of order that pointed out the problem just this week? The main problem is that members are not allowed to vote in they did not pay. The Secretary's minutes and correspondence from the Nominating Committee and Treasurer with the dues date do NOT agree with each other. The voting date was wrong in the minutes, too. According to Robert's Rules of Order: Members have a right to vote even if they did not pay their dues. Presently, the decision was made that all members that did not pay are NOT able to vote.

Just to clarify... all members have their dues deducted from their paychecks. These building level dues have not been defined and they are $20 per year in addition to our paycheck deductions. Members think they are paying for a holiday lunch, others thinks they are for voting privileges and others are being told it is for a committee that collects money. Dues are not defined and never were, but members are being told they cannot vote in this election despite the errors with the dates in the minutes and other correspondence. 

The officials are saying the minutes were approved. Thats it. Point of order does not matter. The elected official is citing past practice and a motion to approve the erroneous minutes with the incorrect voting date listed in April and erroneous dues date.

Does this sound right? If parliamentary procedure is not being followed in its entirety, then where do you go from there? It seems wrong since the members were not at fault for their mistakes. 

 

[Guest Puzzling]

33 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

Bottomline, past practice does not supersede bylaws, the Constitution or Robert's Rules of Order. 

No.

Roberts rules of order (or another parliamentary rulebook) are only in force if the bylaws say so. If there is no article on a parliamentary  authority you are on your own and subject to how a majority thinks the rules should be.

[Guest cmc]

Our bylaws did not speak to this issue. Point of order made.

Our bylaws under Article X- Authority

“Robert’s Rules of Order shall be the parliamentary authority for the Association on all parliamentary questions not covered by the Constitution and By-Laws and such standing rules as the Executive Board may adopt.”

*Members were told a motion was made and the minutes specified a date for dues to be paid. Minutes were approved therefore date stands. Errors and all.
*Some members are excluded from voting and others are not. Members paid on 2 dates thanks to errors.

*We have nothing in bylaws or Constitution in regard to dues, good standing, bad standing or loss of voting rights. Therefore...all members should be allowed to vote.

Pointed out issue 2 days ago and read Robert’s Rules. Member can vote even if dues not paid.

I was told past practice supersedes all. Members have paid to vote in past. 
 

Complex issue but to simplify... nothing writing... issue pointed out at meeting.... 

Past practice falls to the ground now. Our bylaws support Roberts Rules.

 

 

 

 

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Guest cmc said:

However, past practice does apply to contracts and negotiations it seems. Is there a difference that could explain past practice with negotiations for contracts versus bylaws; Constitution and Robert's Rules? 

 

Your bylaws are rules about the organizational structure of your organization. Your constitution, if separate from your bylaws, is about the same thing, but perhaps at a higher level. Your rules of order, which, as noted above, means RONR if that is your parliamentary authority, (and any special rules of order you may have) are about the conduct of business at meetings. What these have in common is that they are inward-facing. Contracts into which your organization enters, in some form or another, are outward facing and are governed by applicable law. Which one you should consult depends on what you are doing. Holding a vote at a meeting is an internal affair. If you somehow entered into a contract about voting at your meetings, you may have a conflict. You'll need to talk to an attorney to see if there is one, and if there is, what to do about it.

 

2 hours ago, Guest cmc said:

The problems came from virtual meetings and many not having the minutes in front of them.

First question: do your bylaws allow for virtual meetings? Second question: what do the minutes have to do with it?

2 hours ago, Guest cmc said:

So, the claim is that a motion was made on the minutes to approve them but there were erroneous dates that were not caught. Would this trump all and STAND even after making a point of order that pointed out the problem just this week? 

I don't quite understand what you're asking, but I'll just say this - the minutes trump nothing, least of all reality. At the meeting, motions are made. They are recorded in the minutes. The minutes should reflect the words used by the chair in putting the question to a vote. If there is an error and fail to do so, the words the chair used in putting the question remain the words adopted. If a motion is made to paint the clubhouse red, and the minutes instead say blue, the organization has still decided to paint it red, even if the minutes have been approved. They will need to be corrected by a motion to amend something previously adopted (strangely enough), by a 2/3 vote or a majority with previous notice, or a majority of the entire membership voting in the affirmative. But what must not be done is paint the clubhouse blue because that's what the minutes say. That would allow a majority at one session to change a decision made at the previous session, ignoring both the rule that doing so requires the vote just mentioned and the fundamental principle that, unless the bylaws say otherwise, changing a decision must be done by a greater vote than was required to make the decision in the first place.

So, my reading of your question is that there are dates mentioned in some motion, and they were recorded incorrectly. The minutes should be corrected.

3 hours ago, Guest cmc said:

The main problem is that members are not allowed to vote in they did not pay.

Assuming it is correct, as you say, that the bylaws do not require dues be paid in order to vote, then this is obviously improper.

 

3 hours ago, Guest cmc said:

The Secretary's minutes and correspondence from the Nominating Committee and Treasurer with the dues date do NOT agree with each other. The voting date was wrong in the minutes, too. According to Robert's Rules of Order: Members have a right to vote even if they did not pay their dues. Presently, the decision was made that all members that did not pay are NOT able to vote.

I don't see why the first point matters. The minutes should reflect what happened at the meeting (i.e. what was done at the meeting), not correspondence between the Nominating Commitee and the Treasurer. I don't know how the voting date got into the minutes, but if it got in because the Secretary is in the habit of including information in the minutes other than the business conducted at the meeting, the Secretary is in a bad habit. But any concern about the dates by which due must be paid seems irrelevant here, where, as you note, non-payment of dues does not take away the right to vote. As to the decision that was made, unless that decision was to amend the bylaws accordingly, it is simply an erroneous decision that purported to take away a basic right of membership without a disciplinary process.

 

3 hours ago, Guest cmc said:

The officials are saying the minutes were approved. Thats it. Point of order does not matter. The elected official is citing past practice and a motion to approve the erroneous minutes with the incorrect voting date listed in April and erroneous dues date.

 

Well, the officials are wrong. Approved minutes can be amended, and reality is what governs. 

As to the point of order the officials say does not matter, you wrote:

13 hours ago, Guest cmc said:

I pointed out the following at the last meeting and made a point of order that there is a problem. I read aloud the following:

 

But then, you didn't tell us what you read aloud. So what happened with that point of order? Here we get into the Rules of Disorder - if a majority decided on appeal to unjustly strip people of voting rights, I'm not sure that there is a remaining remedy.

By the way:

13 hours ago, Guest cmc said:

 I know that this feed is very old, but my question is worth a try due to an upcoming election. 

 

I'm not sure what this means. We're still here and the forum is still active.

[Gary Novosielski]

13 hours ago, Guest cmc said:

With that, I researched and came across Robert's Rules indicating that, "If a member has not been dropped from the rolls and is not under disciplinary action, the member still has the full rights of membership, including the right to vote, unless the bylaws specifically address this situation." 

The elected officials are saying that past practice/custom/tradition supersedes the bylaws and Constitution. Could that be correct?

No, definitely not.   Past practice/custom is the lowest level of all, and yields to all ordinary motions, standing rules, special rules of order, the bylaws, the constitution, and applicable statutes.  You should raise a Point of Order (§23) and be prepared to Appeal (§24) an unfavorable ruling.

Edited May 22, 2021 at 01:12 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Joshua Katz]

6 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

“Robert’s Rules of Order shall be the parliamentary authority for the Association on all parliamentary questions not covered by the Constitution and By-Laws and such standing rules as the Executive Board may adopt.”

 

This is not the language provided in RONR for adopting a parliamentary authority, and it is substantively different from that statement. In particular, in your organization, unlike in RONR, standing rules adopted by the Executive Board (which, presumably, has authority to adopt them) will govern when they contradict RONR. I suppose, then, that the Executive Board could adopt a standing rule stripping members of the right to vote if they have not paid their dues, and, so long as that doesn't conflict with higher-ranking rules within your organization, it will trump the contrary statement in RONR. My betters may think otherwise, though.

(I think this inversion of the ordinary hierarchy will produce a mountain of paradoxes.)

10 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

I was told past practice supersedes all. Members have paid to vote in past. 

As has been said, this is incorrect.

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Guest cmc said:

However, past practice does apply to contracts and negotiations it seems. Is there a difference that could explain past practice with negotiations for contracts versus bylaws; Constitution and Robert's Rules? 

Contractual issues are legal issues, and such questions should be directed to an attorney.

The question at issue here, however, has nothing to with contracts or negotiations.

3 hours ago, Guest cmc said:

So, the claim is that a motion was made on the minutes to approve them but there were erroneous dates that were not caught. Would this trump all and STAND even after making a point of order that pointed out the problem just this week?

The approval of the minutes has absolutely nothing to do with this.

3 hours ago, Guest cmc said:

Does this sound right? If parliamentary procedure is not being followed in its entirety, then where do you go from there? It seems wrong since the members were not at fault for their mistakes. 

The proper course of action is to raise a Point of Order regarding this matter again when a member is improperly denied of the right to vote, followed by an appeal if necessary, and the assembly will decide the issue.

32 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

*Members were told a motion was made and the minutes specified a date for dues to be paid. Minutes were approved therefore date stands. Errors and all.

This is not correct. If there are errors in the minutes, those errors can be corrected after the fact by means of adopting a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted.

Even if the minutes do correctly record the fact that motion was adopted specifying a date for dues to be paid, however, this is irrelevant. As has been previously noted, members who are delinquent in their dues retain the right to vote unless there is a provision in the bylaws stating otherwise.

Approval of the minutes simply indicates that they are an accurate record of what happened at the meeting. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the actions taken at that meeting were proper.

I will note that there is nothing necessarily wrong with an organization adopting a rule which requires that members who are delinquent in their dues for a certain period of time have their right to vote suspended. Such provisions are not unusual. The organization must, however, adopt such a provision in its bylaws if it wishes to have one.

Edited May 22, 2021 at 12:35 AM by Josh Martin

[Guest cmc]

Thank you for all of your helpful responses. 

I am happy to hear that the minutes that have recorded data, whether approved or not, are not able to withstand a point of order that was brought up at our recent meeting. Correct? Even if a motion approved the minutes in error, then it still has not been corrected. Technically. 

Presently, our bylaws require any proposed amendment to be in writing before a vote happens and it must be presented at a regular membership meeting, not any special meeting. This issue cannot be resolved with a change to the bylaws before the election...which is to take place on June 1st. 

Our elected officials are dismissing the issue and all that I pointed out. They are preventing members from voting citing past practice and the dates in the minutes. 

My argument is NO.... Members have a right to vote at this moment in time. Nothing speaks to this issue in the by laws. I brought up the issue and read aloud Robert's Rules and WestLaw's rule with past practice falling to the ground. Let the members vote. 

What does a member do? Do they ask permission of the union president to speak to our Labor Relations Specialist, respectfully? Something is wrong here and it does not seem like we are following parliamentary procedure as it should be. 

[Joshua Katz]

48 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

I am happy to hear that the minutes that have recorded data, whether approved or not, are not able to withstand a point of order that was brought up at our recent meeting. Correct? Even if a motion approved the minutes in error, then it still has not been corrected. Technically. 

 

Not quite. The minutes are not out of order, and a point of order has nothing to do with the minutes. A point of order is appropriate when a rule is broken. The solution to inaccuracies in the minutes is to amend them.

49 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

Our elected officials are dismissing the issue and all that I pointed out. They are preventing members from voting citing past practice and the dates in the minutes. 

 

It is worth noting that elections, and membership meetings in general, are under the control of, well, the membership. Your board has no veto power over them, such as deciding who may vote. Raise a point of order at the election meeting.

50 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

What does a member do? Do they ask permission of the union president to speak to our Labor Relations Specialist, respectfully? Something is wrong here and it does not seem like we are following parliamentary procedure as it should be. 

A member raises a point of order. If the chair rules otherwise and the body upholds that decision on appeal, I'm afraid that's largely the end of it so far as parliamentary procedure is concerned. Ultimately, parliamentary procedure is for organizations that want to use it. It's a set of rules for conducting business fairly and efficiently, not law. However, in the case of certain organizations, often unions among them, there may be some legal remedy, for which you'd need to speak with an attorney. I have no idea what your Labor Relations Specialist does, or why you need permission from the person whose actions you are challenging to speak to them, but you would know better about that. If that is the recourse when your union violates its rules, then yes. Does your local answer to another body? If so, perhaps taking the issue there can help.

[Guest cmc]

All of your responses have been so helpful. I posted because I was hoping to find that our union was doing the right thing here when they are telling members they cannot vote.

I have learned that my union's (elected officials) response about the minutes being approved with erroneous dates and using past practice as a method for which we do things, are all incorrect responses. I may have sounded ridiculous bringing up the minutes, but if so, it is because my union is using it as a reason to allow some to vote and others not. They said that a motion approved the minutes- errors and all. They are using these 2 reasons as to why their decisions STANDS. I disagree, many disagree. Members should be allowed to vote at this moment in time. FYI: The minutes also indicated that we were supposed to vote in April. Technically, there was not a motion to fix that yet. Election is June 1st. 

*Virtual meetings are not specified to answer another posts question, but everyone went remote for everything. We did not have nice weather at the time. We are in NY. 

*To answer another posts question... when I pointed out the problem this week at a regular meeting (point of order), I read aloud the following, "Robert's Rules indicating that, "If a member has not been dropped from the rolls and is not under disciplinary action, the member still has the full rights of membership, including the right to vote, unless the bylaws specifically address this situation." 

The bylaws cannot be changed unless in writing.

*Another post responded to the following article within our contract that was interesting to read. Article X- Authority

“Robert’s Rules of Order shall be the parliamentary authority for the Association on all parliamentary questions not covered by the Constitution and By-Laws and such standing rules as the Executive Board may adopt.” 

Does the underlined portion reflect past practice or give them any ability to adopt any rules without placing them in writing for the bylaws? The Constitution only requires a 2/3 majority vote. 

*To answer another post: The meeting for which I brought up the issue ended without a resolution. Time ran out. When members ask if they can vote they are referring to the minutes. Meanwhile, several emails went out after those minutes with correct dates from the Nominating Committee and Treasurer (they are dismissing those). They want the votes of the "5" that paid on the date the minutes indicate.

EVERYONE SHOULD and not have their voting privilege denied at this moment in time. 

AS far as LRS... that is our union's attorney for contract negotiations. If contacted or requesting permission, out of respect for my union president, I feel that I should indicate to her. They contact your union if they ever hear from a member, anyway. If that is the next step, because clearly our own rules are not being followed. Has anyone found that they are in anyway in order to prevent our members from voting? I was hoping for a YES, so that it is justified. However, I am not finding that.  

 

 

 

[Joshua Katz]

19 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

*Another post responded to the following article within our contract that was interesting to read. Article X- Authority

“Robert’s Rules of Order shall be the parliamentary authority for the Association on all parliamentary questions not covered by the Constitution and By-Laws and such standing rules as the Executive Board may adopt.” 

 

Hold on. First, I had understood this to be in your bylaws. What contract does it appear in?

19 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

Does the underlined portion reflect past practice or give them any ability to adopt any rules without placing them in writing for the bylaws? The Constitution only requires a 2/3 majority vote. 

 

I have no idea if it reflects past practice since I'm not a member of your organization. As for adopting rules, that's a question of interpretation only your organization can do. However, as a general rule, statements about the exercise of a power imply the existence of that power. In statutory construction, that can be derived from a few canons, most notably the presumption against ineffectiveness. But interpretation involves weighing principles like this against one another at times, as well as understanding phrases within the context of the document and the organization. Personally, I think it pretty clearly does.

However, what it definitely says is that, when the board adopts such rules, they will govern when they are in conflict with RONR. Thus, your hierarchy is: Applicable procedural laws, charter or articles if any, Constitution, Bylaws, special rules of order, Board standing rules, then rules of order (RONR), and finally organizational standing rules. So if the Board were to adopt a standing rule requiring that dues be paid up before voting, that would conflict with RONR, but it would, seemingly, prevail. (What if they made a rule to require dues? Well, RONR says such a rule must be in the bylaws. But so what? There's a higher-ranking contrary rule.) But on this entire issue, stay tuned.

[Josh Martin]

13 hours ago, Guest cmc said:

I am happy to hear that the minutes that have recorded data, whether approved or not, are not able to withstand a point of order that was brought up at our recent meeting. Correct? Even if a motion approved the minutes in error, then it still has not been corrected. Technically. 

There are two different things going on here.

One is the approval of the minutes. The approval of the minutes simply relates to whether the minutes are an accurate record of what happened at the meeting in question. If there is an error in the minutes, the proper course of action is not to raise a Point of Order, but to make a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted to correct the error.

The other issue is whether members who are delinquent in their dues have the right to vote. The proper method to correct this is that, when such a member attempts to vote and is prevented from doing so, is to raise a Point of Order regarding this matter, followed by an Appeal if necessary.

In the event that a motion was adopted at the meeting in question which was in conflict with some rule, and the motion constitutes a continuing breach, a Point of Order could also be raised regarding that motion. But again, that is a separate issue from correcting the minutes.

13 hours ago, Guest cmc said:

What does a member do? Do they ask permission of the union president to speak to our Labor Relations Specialist, respectfully? Something is wrong here and it does not seem like we are following parliamentary procedure as it should be. 

No, what a member does is to:

1) When the issue arises again, raise a Point of Order regarding this matter.

2) If the President again rules the Point of Order not well taken, Appeal from the decision of the chair.

3) Another member must second the appeal.

4) The assembly will then debate the appeal. The chair may speak twice (both first and last) and other members may speak once.

5) After debate, the question is put as "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" If a majority votes in the negative, the chair's ruling is overturned.

The procedures for a Point of Order and Appeal are discussed in more detail in Sections 23 and 24 of RONR.

Speaking to the Labor Relations Specialist won't accomplish anything so far as RONR is concerned, but to the extent that there are also issues of labor law involved (which seems very possible), it may be desirable to do that.

19 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

I have learned that my union's (elected officials) response about the minutes being approved with erroneous dates and using past practice as a method for which we do things, are all incorrect responses. I may have sounded ridiculous bringing up the minutes, but if so, it is because my union is using it as a reason to allow some to vote and others not. They said that a motion approved the minutes- errors and all. They are using these 2 reasons as to why their decisions STANDS. I disagree, many disagree. Members should be allowed to vote at this moment in time. FYI: The minutes also indicated that we were supposed to vote in April. Technically, there was not a motion to fix that yet. Election is June 1st. 

Just to be clear on this, adopting a motion to approve the minutes does approve the minutes, errors and all. This does not mean, however, that such errors cannot be corrected in the future. See FAQ #16.

Furthermore, whether the minutes are "correct" or "in error" is solely a matter of whether the minutes accurately reflect what happened at that meeting, not whether what happened was proper.

Suppose, for instance, that the assembly did in fact adopt a motion at this meeting providing that "Only members who have paid their dues by XXX date shall be permitted to vote." This isn't an error in the minutes. If this is what happened, the assembly can and should approve those minutes, and all the assembly is doing by approving the minutes is acknowledging that they are an accurate record of what happened in the meeting. Approving the minutes has absolutely nothing to do with whether the members approve of the actions contained within the minutes or even whether the actions contained in the minutes are valid.

Such a motion is, however, in conflict with the organization's rules, because a rule of this nature can only be adopted in the bylaws. Such a rule is not enforceable, and a Point of Order regarding the adoption or application of this rule may be raised at a later time.

26 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

Does the underlined portion reflect past practice or give them any ability to adopt any rules without placing them in writing for the bylaws? The Constitution only requires a 2/3 majority vote. 

This will ultimately be a question of bylaws interpretation for the society to decide for itself. In my view, however, while this rule does appear to give broad authority to the Executive Board to adopt rules (which are incorrectly described as "standing rules"), there are still limits to this authority. In particular, I do not believe the board could adopt rules which are in conflict with the Constitution or Bylaws. Because those documents will define the rights of membership, it seems to me that (even aside from what RONR says on this subject) a rule which would deprive members of such rights for failure to pay dues would conflict with the Constitution or Bylaws, and therefore could not be adopted except by amending those rules.

29 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

Has anyone found that they are in anyway in order to prevent our members from voting?

I do not see anything from the facts presented which would suggest these actions are justified. We have already been told that there is nothing in the constitution or bylaws to support this. It may be that there is something in applicable law on this subject.

[Joshua Katz]

58 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Because those documents will define the rights of membership, it seems to me that (even aside from what RONR says on this subject) a rule which would deprive members of such rights for failure to pay dues would conflict with the Constitution or Bylaws, and therefore could not be adopted except by amending those rules.

What exactly would those documents need to say about those rights? I don't usually see bylaws, for instance, that explicitly grant the right to vote.

[Guest cmc]

40 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

What exactly would those documents need to say about those rights? I don't usually see bylaws, for instance, that explicitly grant the right to vote.

They do not say anything currently. However, if in the future they were to amended properly, then I guess through the definitions of good standing and bad standing. Possibly, defining what the dues involve for the building level (keeping in mind we are all members of our union and have them deducted automatically from our paychecks), so these building level dues would have to be defined. Bad standing may indicate... not paying building dues by such date and therefore....... voting privileges are in jeopardy. Correct?

Presently, none of that exists. I agree with everyone that has specified in their posts that it is unjustified to deny our members the right to vote in this election.

The election is on June 1st for the building. Not much time for anything. It would seem that the election would be invalid based on these facts. Not to mention, the voting date was never corrected or amended in the minutes. April was the date listed. It is amazing how they are using the minutes to justify 5 people voting and the rest of their members not being allowed to do so. 

I just do not think anything is going to change. I am trying and would have hoped that the President would save the day here and the integrity of the election. 

[Joshua Katz]

53 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

I just do not think anything is going to change. I am trying and would have hoped that the President would save the day here and the integrity of the election. 

But, again, the president does not get to decide how the election runs - unless the body lets him run roughshod over it. The time to give up, or look outside for remedies, is when a majority supports the president, and not before. (Speaking of presidents screwing around with elections...)

54 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

The election is on June 1st for the building. Not much time for anything.

As I said before, you can raise a point of order at the election meeting. Line someone up to second an appeal ahead of time, though.

 

55 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

Not to mention, the voting date was never corrected or amended in the minutes. April was the date listed.

As has been said before, this is irrelevant.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

What exactly would those documents need to say about those rights? I don't usually see bylaws, for instance, that explicitly grant the right to vote.

I don't know that they need to say anything. It is a generally understood principle not only in RONR, but in the common parliamentary law generally, that a "member" is a person with certain rights, including the right to vote.

1 hour ago, Guest cmc said:

I just do not think anything is going to change. I am trying and would have hoped that the President would save the day here and the integrity of the election. 

We've told you several times the proper procedure to follow in the event the President fails to do this. Raise an Appeal from the decision of the chair, and the assembly will ultimately make the determination.

If the assembly also fails to uphold the rights of members, then you are out of luck from a parliamentary perspective and would need to look into what legal options (if any) might be available if you wish to continue to pursue this.

Parliamentary rules are ultimately enforced by the body as a whole, not by simply hoping that the right person will magically solve everything.

Edited May 22, 2021 at 06:02 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

It is a generally understood principle not only in RONR, but in the common parliamentary law generally, that a "member" is a person with certain rights, including the right to vote.

Where does the common parliamentary law fall in the hierarchy? I suppose I had assumed it was the rules of order if the organization has not adopted a manual, and fell just below the rules of order otherwise. Am I wrong?

[Josh Martin]

17 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Where does the common parliamentary law fall in the hierarchy? I suppose I had assumed it was the rules of order if the organization has not adopted a manual, and fell just below the rules of order otherwise. Am I wrong?

No, I don't think you are wrong at all.

But my point is that the common parliamentary law and RONR, even although those rules themselves rank below the society's rules, provide information which is of use in interpreting the meaning of the term "member" in the society's bylaws. I am generally inclined to think that, barring something in the organization's bylaws stating otherwise, this term should be interpreted as meaning persons who have certain rights within the society, including the right to vote. As a consequence, a lower-level rule which restricts the right to vote would conflict with the bylaws.

[Joshua Katz]

Thanks, I believe I see your point now. I will have to think on whether I agree or not.

[Guest cmc]

21 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

No, I don't think you are wrong at all.

But my point is that the common parliamentary law and RONR, even although those rules themselves rank below the society's rules, provide information which is of use in interpreting the meaning of the term "member" in the society's bylaws. I am generally inclined to think that, barring something in the organization's bylaws stating otherwise, this term should be interpreted as meaning persons who have certain rights within the society, including the right to vote. As a consequence, a lower-level rule which restricts the right to vote would conflict with the bylaws.

Membership is included in the Constitution but is not defined. It goes on further to say that a percentage makes the quorum. I questioned section 2 since all of us would be in violation of not paying additional dues. Again, these are in addition to what is deducted from our paychecks. What we are paying extra for is not defined. Many did not think that it could the right to vote, but holiday lunches, etc., instead. 

ARTICLE II: MEMBERSHIP

 

Section 1.  Membership in this association shall be open to all professional personnel employed at 

 

Section 2.  Professional personnel hired after the commencement of the school term will be given the opportunity to join within the first six weeks of their employment without penalty.

 

As far as appealing, there will not be any general membership meetings where the assembly is together before the election. The voting for the election takes place during certain hours. 

 

Again, all of your responses have been most helpful and greatly appreciated.

[Josh Martin]

28 minutes ago, Guest cmc said:

As far as appealing, there will not be any general membership meetings where the assembly is together before the election. The voting for the election takes place during certain hours. 

Ah, now I see the problem.

It would still be possible to address the issue, but it will be a bit messier. A Point of Order (and an Appeal) may be raised regarding this matter after the election. If the number of persons who attempted to vote but were prevented from doing so exceeds the margin by which the winning candidate won the election, this would be sufficient grounds to declare that election invalid. If the margin is greater than the number of affected persons, the Point of Order (and Appeal) may still be raised for the purpose of correcting this issue for the future, but will not affect the validity of the election.

[Guest cmc]

14 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Ah, now I see the problem.

It would still be possible to address the issue, but it will be a bit messier. A Point of Order (and an Appeal) may be raised regarding this matter after the election. If the number of persons who attempted to vote but were prevented from doing so exceeds the margin by which the winning candidate won the election, this would be sufficient grounds to declare that election invalid. If the margin is greater than the number of affected persons, the Point of Order (and Appeal) may still be raised for the purpose of correcting this issue for the future, but will not affect the validity of the election.

Interesting. I would much rather be proactive in pursuit of a valid election rather than reactive. It is not a good start for anyone once it is complete and we all have to work together on a daily basis still. With the point of order this month, it certainly will warrant future amendments within the Constitution and bylaws for the newly elected officials to work on. Other members need to make noise if they feel that they were wronged with their voting privileges being taken away from them. The elected officials seem to not want to hear it. I am aware that members have raised concern and that emails are being ignored.