refusing to allow debate before voting on a main motion to ratify

[Marsha Thole]

The vote to ratify proposed bylaw amendments (made by the board) is to be done all at once with NO discussion, not on individual amendments. The reason proffered was that people had a chance to send in their comments prior, so there will be no discussion at the meeting, just an up or down vote--yes or no. Is that allowed, to not hold a discussion? RONR 10:57 says "the motion to ratify is a main motion, it is debatable and opens the entire question to debate." So can the president declare there will be no debate? (Nothing in the our bylaws covers that.) 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/19/2022 at 12:53 AM, Marsha Thole said:

The vote to ratify proposed bylaw amendments (made by the board) is to be done all at once with NO discussion, not on individual amendments. The reason proffered was that people had a chance to send in their comments prior, so there will be no discussion at the meeting, just an up or down vote--yes or no. Is that allowed, to not hold a discussion? RONR 10:57 says "the motion to ratify is a main motion, it is debatable and opens the entire question to debate." So can the president declare there will be no debate? (Nothing in the our bylaws covers that.) 

No, the president has no such power unless there are some unusual rules in your bylaws.  Check your bylaws for the required procedure for bylaws amendment, and make sure that's being followed.

In the typical society, if there is such a thing, the board does not control what the membership gets to vote on.  The board is subordinate to, not superior to, the membership. So the motion before the membership is a motion to amend the bylaws, not to ratify something already approved by the board.  But again, check your bylaws.

[Marsha Thole]

To quote the bylaw on amending bylaws: The Board may amend these bylaws or any portion therefore. Changes shall take effect upon ratification by a majority vote..."

Yes, the board is violating the usual 2/3 needed to approve bylaw amendments/revision by only using a majority vote. The board had no one on the bylaws committee except for board members--no one from the general membership. 

[Joshua Katz]

On 2/19/2022 at 1:04 AM, Marsha Thole said:

To quote the bylaw on amending bylaws: The Board may amend these bylaws or any portion therefore. Changes shall take effect upon ratification by a majority vote..."

 

 

On 2/19/2022 at 1:04 AM, Marsha Thole said:

violating

I don't see that. Your bylaws say you need a majority vote, so that is what you need.

As to the rest, the president has no such power, and a point of order should be raised. Should the president ignore it and bully his way through, I would vote no on everything. If you don't want my input, clearly you don't want my vote.

[Marsha Thole]

Thank you. That is what I plan to do--raise a point of order. I don't expect to get far with that, though. These are people who are clueless on Robert's Rules, and the assembly would not (just as in the past) understand anything I would say, anyway. (Not the first president to ignore a point of order.)

 

[Joshua Katz]

On 2/19/2022 at 10:31 AM, Marsha Thole said:

These are people who are clueless on Robert's Rules, and the assembly would not (just as in the past) understand anything I would say, anyway.

Get together a group of allies before the meeting. Explain the situation to them. Line up people who will raise points of order, who will appeal, and who will debate on that appeal. 

[Josh Martin]

On 2/19/2022 at 12:04 AM, Marsha Thole said:

Yes, the board is violating the usual 2/3 needed to approve bylaw amendments/revision by only using a majority vote.

You just quoted your organization's bylaws, and you say they provide that "Changes shall take effect upon ratification by a majority vote." So this does not violate anything.

On 2/19/2022 at 12:04 AM, Marsha Thole said:

The board had no one on the bylaws committee except for board members--no one from the general membership. 

This violates no rule in RONR. I don't know if it violates anything in your organization's rules.

On 2/18/2022 at 11:53 PM, Marsha Thole said:

The vote to ratify proposed bylaw amendments (made by the board) is to be done all at once with NO discussion, not on individual amendments. The reason proffered was that people had a chance to send in their comments prior, so there will be no discussion at the meeting, just an up or down vote--yes or no. Is that allowed, to not hold a discussion? RONR 10:57 says "the motion to ratify is a main motion, it is debatable and opens the entire question to debate." So can the president declare there will be no debate? (Nothing in the our bylaws covers that.) 

It is permissible to adopt rules prohibiting debate on the bylaw amendments, but this decision can only be made by the assembly itself, at the meeting, and it would require a 2/3 vote for adoption.

Additionally, if I understand correctly that what is proposed is a single vote on all 16 amendments as a package, I would note that any member may most likely demand a separate vote on a particular amendment. (The exception would be if the amendments are closely related.)

On 2/19/2022 at 9:31 AM, Marsha Thole said:

Thank you. That is what I plan to do--raise a point of order. I don't expect to get far with that, though. These are people who are clueless on Robert's Rules, and the assembly would not (just as in the past) understand anything I would say, anyway. (Not the first president to ignore a point of order.)

If you anticipate that the President will simply ignore the Point of Order, you should also review RONR (12th ed.) 62:2-15 for next steps.

[Marsha Thole]

As I suspected, my point was ignored, and the president proceeded to repeat that there would be no discussion. So it was a yes or no vote. You can't fix stupid, as Judge Judy always says. (Yes, I know what Ch XX in RONR says. But as in most HOAs, the apathy is thicker than quick sand.)

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/19/2022 at 12:47 PM, Marsha Thole said:

As I suspected, my point was ignored, and the president proceeded to repeat that there would be no discussion. So it was a yes or no vote. You can't fix stupid, as Judge Judy always says. (Yes, I know what Ch XX in RONR says. But as in most HOAs, the apathy is thicker than quick sand.)

 

Did she say no discussion or no amendment?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/19/2022 at 11:11 AM, Josh Martin said:

On 2/19/2022 at 1:04 AM, Marsha Thole said:

The board had no one on the bylaws committee except for board members--no one from the general membership. 

This violates no rule in RONR. I don't know if it violates anything in your organization's rules.

No rule, perhaps, but (at least in the case of a revision), RONR expects a bylaws committee to be a committee of the membership not of the board, unless the board has been granted the power to refer such matters to a committee. [57:5]

@Marsha Tholehasn't said this explicitly, but I think the most likely way for a committee to end up with all board members and no general members is for it to have been appointed by the board, not the membership.