motion made Volunteer FD motion during "new business" which has no agenda

[Christina Roehrig]

Hello, I have a question regarding a motion that was made during our regularly scheduled business meeting. Our FD loosely follows Robert's Rules of Order during our meetings. We had a motion made to reject our fire chief's resignation at the end of our business meeting during the new business section of our agenda which had no list of items to discuss. There was a 2nd and a quick vote and adjournment. The next day without notice to the membership or another meeting the board stated that the motion couldn't be made during new business and cited Robert's Rules and that the chief's resignation stands with no further explanation.  The new business portion of our meeting had no agenda. However, the meeting does have an agenda posted on a website that lists items to discuss and vote on. I thought that items brought up under new business could be discussed, but not voted on until the next regularly scheduled business meeting.     Thank you for any input. 

[Joshua Katz]

On 8/29/2021 at 9:24 AM, Christina Roehrig said:

We had a motion made to reject our fire chief's resignation at the end of our business meeting during the new business section of our agenda which had no list of items to discuss. There was a 2nd and a quick vote and adjournment.

Not that it matters for your question, but this was probably out of order, in that it's a motion to not take any action. It's also not clear to me how you'll make him be Chief, but that's another story.

On 8/29/2021 at 9:24 AM, Christina Roehrig said:

The next day without notice to the membership or another meeting the board stated that the motion couldn't be made during new business and cited Robert's Rules and that the chief's resignation stands with no further explanation. 

Boards answer to the membership, not membership to the board. The board has no authority, none whatsoever, over business conducted at a membership meeting. They can pound sand.

What's more, no one can raise a point of order outside a meeting. If anyone has an issue, they should have raised it during the meeting, or, if applicable, at a future meeting. You can't just make a statement outside the meeting context, where no one has an opportunity to respond.

On 8/29/2021 at 9:24 AM, Christina Roehrig said:

The new business portion of our meeting had no agenda. However, the meeting does have an agenda posted on a website that lists items to discuss and vote on.

Well, it sounds like your agenda is non-standard, and potentially your organization's use of the term "agenda." In fact, it's likely that you'd be better off with no agenda. That said, though, items not on the agenda can be considered when items on the agenda are completed, or through a motion to suspend the rules, or by amending the agenda. Given that any such issue, then, is simply a matter of form, it doesn't make any motions invalid. If no point of order is raised at the time, it is too late to complain later.

On 8/29/2021 at 9:24 AM, Christina Roehrig said:

I thought that items brought up under new business could be discussed, but not voted on until the next regularly scheduled business meeting. 

Any such rule would have to be in your own rules; there is none in RONR.

[Guest answer]

On 8/29/2021 at 8:54 AM, Joshua Katz said:

Not that it matters for your question, but this was probably out of order, in that it's a motion to not take any action. It's also not clear to me how you'll make him be Chief, but that's another story.

Boards answer to the membership, not membership to the board. The board has no authority, none whatsoever, over business conducted at a membership meeting. They can pound sand.

What's more, no one can raise a point of order outside a meeting. If anyone has an issue, they should have raised it during the meeting, or, if applicable, at a future meeting. You can't just make a statement outside the meeting context, where no one has an opportunity to respond.

Well, it sounds like your agenda is non-standard, and potentially your organization's use of the term "agenda." In fact, it's likely that you'd be better off with no agenda. That said, though, items not on the agenda can be considered when items on the agenda are completed, or through a motion to suspend the rules, or by amending the agenda. Given that any such issue, then, is simply a matter of form, it doesn't make any motions invalid. If no point of order is raised at the time, it is too late to complain later.

Any such rule would have to be in your own rules; there is none in RONR.

The information I gave about the Chief was just to put the question in context. My issue is really about how the board handled the motion, then their actions the following day. We are having what the board is calling an "emergency meeting" to discuss replacing the chief this Tuesday. I want to have as much information as possible to be able to question their actions.  Thank you for your input. 

[Josh Martin]

On 8/29/2021 at 8:24 AM, Christina Roehrig said:

We had a motion made to reject our fire chief's resignation at the end of our business meeting during the new business section of our agenda which had no list of items to discuss.

What should have been done is for a motion to be made to accept the resignation, and that motion would then be defeated.

It should also be noted that, as a practical matter, you can't really force someone to continue in a position against their will. So generally a resignation is accepted unless 1) there is a desire to remove the person from office instead or 2) the intent is to make clear to the person that the assembly wishes for the person to continue in the position, with the understanding that the resignation will be accepted if the person still wishes to resign.

On 8/29/2021 at 8:24 AM, Christina Roehrig said:

The next day without notice to the membership or another meeting the board stated that the motion couldn't be made during new business and cited Robert's Rules and that the chief's resignation stands with no further explanation.

This is false, for multiple reasons.

1) There is no reason under Robert's Rules of Order that a motion pertaining to a resignation could not be made during New Business.

2) Even if it were the case that the motion could not be made during New Business, a Point of Order regarding a violation of procedure generally must be raised at the time of the breach.

3) Even if it were the case that the motion was somehow invalid, the resignation still would not stand. The board seems to have their understanding of the situation reversed. They appear to be under the impression that a resignation is presumed to be effective unless a motion to reject it is adopted. Under Robert's Rules, the rule is actually that a resignation is not effective until a motion has been adopted to accept it.

Additionally, as Mr. Katz notes, a Point of Order and a ruling can only be made during a meeting. Further, if this motion was originally made during a meeting of the membership, such a Point of Order and ruling could only be made during a meeting of the membership. The board lacks the authority to declare an action of the general membership invalid.

On 8/29/2021 at 8:24 AM, Christina Roehrig said:

The new business portion of our meeting had no agenda.

Yes, and it shouldn't. The purpose of New Business is for the making of motions which are not set as orders of the day. That's what makes them "new."

On 8/29/2021 at 8:24 AM, Christina Roehrig said:

However, the meeting does have an agenda posted on a website that lists items to discuss and vote on.

This fact has no bearing on the relevant rules.

On 8/29/2021 at 8:24 AM, Christina Roehrig said:

I thought that items brought up under new business could be discussed, but not voted on until the next regularly scheduled business meeting.

RONR has no such rule.

On 8/29/2021 at 10:28 AM, Guest answer said:

The information I gave about the Chief was just to put the question in context. My issue is really about how the board handled the motion, then their actions the following day. We are having what the board is calling an "emergency meeting" to discuss replacing the chief this Tuesday. I want to have as much information as possible to be able to question their actions.  Thank you for your input. 

That seems somewhat premature, since the facts presented here suggest to me that you still have a Fire Chief.

I will add here that the answers above are based upon the rules in RONR, and it may well be that the organization's own rules and/or applicable law provide otherwise on these matters, and such rules would take precedence over RONR.

Edited August 29, 2021 at 03:33 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Reply]

No, we do not have a chief. The following the meeting the board, in a private meeting, chose to take the chief off all contact information and emergency services citing that the motion made to reject the resignation was wrongly made during new business. Our bylaws for our department do not cover any situation like this. 

[Josh Martin]

On 8/29/2021 at 12:47 PM, Guest Reply said:

No, we do not have a chief. The following the meeting the board, in a private meeting, chose to take the chief off all contact information and emergency services citing that the motion made to reject the resignation was wrongly made during new business. Our bylaws for our department do not cover any situation like this. 

Well, then it seems your contact information and emergency services are inaccurate. As has been explained previously, the board's explanation "that the motion made to reject the resignation was wrongly made during new business" is incorrect and, in any event, is irrelevant, because a resignation does not become effective until it is accepted, which hasn't happened in any event. As a matter of parliamentary procedure, this person is still chief.

(Again, this is so far as RONR is concerned. If your rules or applicable law say otherwise, that is beyond the scope of RONR and this forum.)

It seems to me that what this ultimately boils down to is that the board is showing a flagrant disregard for the instructions of the membership. As a practical matter, the only ways I see this showdown ending are as follows: 1) the board caves, 2) the membership caves, or 3) the membership fires the board and gets a new board. For the last one, check your bylaws or see FAQ #20 if your bylaws are silent on that topic.

Edited August 29, 2021 at 06:02 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

On 8/29/2021 at 1:47 PM, Guest Reply said:

No, we do not have a chief. The following the meeting the board, in a private meeting, chose to take the chief off all contact information and emergency services citing that the motion made to reject the resignation was wrongly made during new business. Our bylaws for our department do not cover any situation like this. 

Your bylaws not addressing a runaway board trying to lord it over the membership is not surprising. 

I forgot to add - their conclusion, in any event, doesn't follow from their premises. If the motion were somehow invalidated, there would be no business conducted on the matter. It doesn't follow that the resignation has been accepted. I still would like to know the plan for making someone be fire chief who has chosen not to be one, though.

[Guest Chief]

At this point it's not about getting the chief back. It is about the board and how they have been operating.  This is the latest and most concerning incident that I have questioned. I really appreciate all the input. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/29/2021 at 11:28 AM, Guest answer said:

The information I gave about the Chief was just to put the question in context. My issue is really about how the board handled the motion, then their actions the following day. We are having what the board is calling an "emergency meeting" to discuss replacing the chief this Tuesday. I want to have as much information as possible to be able to question their actions.  Thank you for your input. 

If I have followed the details of what occurred, which can be iffy, the Chief's resignation was never accepted, and so the Chief is still the Chief.

Apparently someone tried to move not to accept the resignation, which was an incorrect motion, since not doing something is essentially the same as doing nothing, i.e.,  the resignation would not be accepted whether the motion passed or failed.  The proper motion would be to accept the resignation, and if you were opposed to doing so, to vote No on that motion.  And New Business would be the proper time to do so.

But as no motion was ever considered, the resignation was never accepted, and the resignation could be withdrawn, if it should please the Chief to do so.