Removal of booster members

[Richard Brown]

On 3/29/2023 at 7:39 PM, Joshua Katz said:

The problem, in my mind, is that many use-cases of RONR do not actually fit well. For instance, many volunteer fire departments use RONR, but cannot be reasonably expected to use Chapter XX before a firefighter can be stopped from disobeying orders on the fire scene. Similarly, an organization that works with children cannot reasonably be expected to be powerless to stop people from participating without a trial procedure.

i’m not sure I agree. However, more importantly, there is no evidence in this case that these parents did anything to endanger or adversely affect children.  But, even assuming there is some need to be able to prohibit certain parents from interacting with children without a trial procedure, the bylaws or special rules of order can certainly provide for that.  In this case, there is no evidence that there is such a procedure.

[James Brown]

On 3/29/2023 at 8:39 PM, Joshua Katz said:

The problem, in my mind, is that many use-cases of RONR do not actually fit well. For instance, many volunteer fire departments use RONR, but cannot be reasonably expected to use Chapter XX before a firefighter can be stopped from disobeying orders on the fire scene. Similarly, an organization that works with children cannot reasonably be expected to be powerless to stop people from participating without a trial procedure.

I would agree @Joshua Katz. An organization shouldn’t be hamstrung in case of “emergency”.

However, I believe in a case by case basis and in this case the board had more than enough time to conduct an “investigation”, or to talk through and communicate with the removed parents. They could have at any time reached out to seek reconciliation and remediation. They did not. They chose instead to operate behind the scenes to remove these parents without the parents knowledge, operating as judge, jury and executioner in one move.

I must stress that this removal was in no way, shape or form based on these parents’s interactions with students. It was based on interactions the parents had with members of the board. It boils down to a personality conflict between adults unfortunately. It resulted in the removal of parents from being able to be involved in their own child’s journey through this activity.

These parents are being treated like criminals who are not allowed to be around children. Sadly, an actual accused criminal does receive their “day in court” whereas these parents did not.

[Dan Honemann]

Mr. Brown, you seem to be shying away from the idea of raising a point of order at a membership meeting that the Board lacked the authority to take the action that it did, and, if the assembly ultimately decides that this point is not well taken, making a motion to rescind the action taken by the Board. Is there some reason for this?

I should add that, if an opportunity does not arise at the membership meeting to raise a point of order in this regard, then  a motion can be made to declare the Board's action null and void. A majority vote is all that is required for the adoption of such a motion, and if it is rejected, then making a motion to rescind the action taken by the Board can still be made.

Edited March 30, 2023 at 01:30 PM by Dan Honemann
Added the last paragraph.

[James Brown]

On 3/30/2023 at 8:59 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Mr. Brown, you seem to be shying away from the idea of raising a point of order at a membership meeting that the Board lacked the authority to take the action that it did, and, if the assembly ultimately decides that this point is not well taken, making a motion to rescind the action taken by the Board. Is there some reason for this?

I should add that, if an opportunity does not arise at the membership meeting to raise a point of order in this regard, then  a motion can be made to declare the Board's action null and void. A majority vote is all that is required for the adoption of such a motion, and if it is rejected, then making a motion to rescind the action taken by the Board can still be made.

@Dan Honemann - I think the idea of raising a Point of Order at a General Meeting is a great idea. Unfortunately there are no General Meetings until the election in April, and our current bylaws only allow for General Meetings at the election and the budget meeting. All other meetings are board meetings. So the opportunities to make motions, and Points of Order are very limited.

The current board wishes to stay in their current positions. In fact, the current president stated that their biggest fear is that a new president will be re-elected and the removed parents will be reinstated. It is extremely likely that if re-elected, this current culture will persist.

Now… the board did recently agree to meet with these parents and these parents alone (under the stipulation that no motions will be made). The removed parents are going to attempt to reason with the board one last time before the election. So there is a possibility for remediations to happen.

Hopefully that answers your question. We’re certainly not shying away, but lacking in opposites to make such a motion.

[Dan Honemann]

Do your bylaws provide for special meetings of the membership?

[Dan Honemann]

And why can't this matter be brought up at this next annual meeting?

[James Brown]

On 3/30/2023 at 11:23 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Do your bylaws provide for special meetings of the membership?

Yes. However, special meetings can only be called by the president and the president has no desire to call a special meeting on this matter.

[James Brown]

On 3/30/2023 at 11:29 AM, Dan Honemann said:

And why can't this matter be brought up at this next annual meeting?

It can. It may well be if the meeting with the removed parents does not yield any results.

[James Brown]

On 3/30/2023 at 11:40 AM, James Brown said:

It can. It may well be if the meeting with the removed parents does not yield any results.

I am currently in talks with a certified and registered parliamentarian who hopefully can bring some clarity to this matter. It was my hope that I could get some answers on this forum as well.

[James Brown]

I have heard back from the CPP-T and this is what they had to say…

“Adopting a motion that "conflicts with the bylaws" is one thing, but adopting a motion on which the bylaws are silent is NOT a violation of the rules in the bylaws.  My review of the bylaws did not mention "volunteers" at all.

 

"Proper disciplinary procedures" are (usually, but not always) required to expel a member from an organization or an officer from their office.  The principle does not apply to removing someone as a volunteer.  As I recall, and with a quick review of them once again, the bylaws give the board broad powers, which would include addressing and deciding matters related to volunteers and their selection, in the absence of any other written policies on that area.

 

I'm afraid that you will not find my opinion supportive, and that you are unlikely to prevail, and I don't want to waste your money.”

[James Brown]

On 3/30/2023 at 12:53 PM, James Brown said:

I have heard back from the CPP-T and this is what they had to say…

“Adopting a motion that "conflicts with the bylaws" is one thing, but adopting a motion on which the bylaws are silent is NOT a violation of the rules in the bylaws.  My review of the bylaws did not mention "volunteers" at all.

 

"Proper disciplinary procedures" are (usually, but not always) required to expel a member from an organization or an officer from their office.  The principle does not apply to removing someone as a volunteer.  As I recall, and with a quick review of them once again, the bylaws give the board broad powers, which would include addressing and deciding matters related to volunteers and their selection, in the absence of any other written policies on that area.

 

I'm afraid that you will not find my opinion supportive, and that you are unlikely to prevail, and I don't want to waste your money.”

Based on this information, I feel it is hopeless that these removed parents have any chance of having their volunteer privileges restored. This is unfortunate.

[Dan Honemann]

Did you tell this person you contacted that the actions taken by the Board purportedly prohibit these members from running for office, as you have previously indicated.  

In any event, the final decision (short of a judicial determination) rests with your membership, and no one else.  Based upon what you have posted, my advice would be that you make a motion at the upcoming annual meeting that the actions which were taken by the Board in this connection (describing them in some detail) are null and void, and if this motion is not adopted, that you then move to have these actions rescinded. Try to line up as much support as you can in advance of the meeting.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/30/2023 at 12:53 PM, James Brown said:

“Adopting a motion that "conflicts with the bylaws" is one thing, but adopting a motion on which the bylaws are silent is NOT a violation of the rules in the bylaws.  My review of the bylaws did not mention "volunteers" at all.

This raises an interesting question.  A board has only such powers as the bylaws provide.  So are we to believe that a board that exceeds its power by performing an action the bylaws do not permit, has not violated the bylaws??

That's hard to defend.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/30/2023 at 2:42 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

This raises an interesting question.  A board has only such powers as the bylaws provide.  So are we to believe that a board that exceeds its power by performing an action the bylaws do not permit, has not violated the bylaws??

That's hard to defend.

I think that 23:9 is dispositive concerning this question.

[James Brown]

On 3/30/2023 at 1:47 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Did you tell this person you contacted that the actions taken by the Board purportedly prohibit these members from running for office, as you have previously indicated.  

In any event, the final decision (short of a judicial determination) rests with your membership, and no one else.  Based upon what you have posted, my advice would be that you make a motion at the upcoming annual meeting that the actions which were taken by the Board in this connection (describing them in some detail) are null and void, and if this motion is not adopted, that you then move to have these actions rescinded. Try to line up as much support as you can in advance of the meeting.

I failed to mention it… I sent a follow up with more details and am awaiting their response.

[James Brown]

On 3/30/2023 at 4:26 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I think that 23:9 is dispositive concerning this question.

I am ordering the 12th Edition of RONR tonight. I am unclear what 23:9 is… Can you explain?

If you’re unable to explain due to copyright issues, say no more.

[James Brown]

I wanted to thank @Josh Martin, @Joshua Katz, @Dan Honemann, @Gary Novosielski, @Richard Brown, for your input on this matter 🙏

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/30/2023 at 4:47 PM, James Brown said:

I am ordering the 12th Edition of RONR tonight. I am unclear what 23:9 is… Can you explain?

If you’re unable to explain due to copyright issues, say no more.

"23:9    Remedy When Action Taken by an Executive Board Is Null and Void. If the executive board of a society takes action that exceeds the board's instructions or authority, that conflicts with a decision made by the assembly of the society, or that falls under any of the categories listed in 23:6, a point of order can be raised at a board meeting at any time during the continuance of the breach. If the point of order is sustained, the action must be declared null and void. Alternatively, the society's assembly can adopt an incidental main motion by majority vote declaring that the board's action is null and void; or, if it is affecting business at a meeting of the assembly, the board's action can be declared null and void by a ruling of the chair relating to the affected business or on a relevant point of order raised by a member. It is also possible for the assembly to bring disciplinary measures against the board members who voted for the improper action. If the assembly finds itself in sympathy with the board's action and the action is one that that assembly could have authorized in advance, the assembly can instead ratify the action as explained in 10:54–57."   (emphasis supplied)

[Richard Brown]

@Dan HonemannYou beat me to posting that by about a half minute!  I agree that it seems dispositive of the situation.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/30/2023 at 4:26 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I think that 23:9 is dispositive concerning this question.

I think so too. 

And that seems to blow up the assertion by @James Brown's "CPP-T", that since volunteers are not mentioned in the bylaws, nothing the board does to volunteers can violate the bylaws.  That must be in the Special Edition of RONR.

I note that these are not merely volunteers off the street, they are members of the organization.  I think it's worth a highlight that in addition to the breaches noted in 23:6, actions taken by a board exceeding its authority or instructions can create a continuing breach.

With respect to the original question, It seems to me that even if the board did not deprive these members of a basic parliamentary right, they did deprive them of other privileges of membership, thereby exceeding their authority, and creating a continuing breach, subject to a Point of Order at any time as long as these privileges remain abridged.

Edited March 31, 2023 at 12:25 AM by Gary Novosielski

[James Brown]

I truly appreciate the input.

I’m still waiting for the CPP-Ts response to my latest email that included additional details.

Their first reply certainly was a head scratcher and with my limited knowledge of RONR I didn’t feel confident enough to contradict them.

[James Brown]

After providing the CPP-T with the additional information, this was their response…

“As I said, the only situations where Robert's Rules requires disciplinary proceedings of some kind (e.g., trial) are removal from membership and removal from an officer position (which would include any non-officer board positions), so the rules in these situations don't support any action against the board acting as it did, even if it seems extremely unfair.  Regardless of what the various volunteer activities are, the board appears to have the power to decide who participates in such activities.

I do NOT see anything in the rules that would prevent the parents from running for the board, if they chose to do so.  Personally, with such interpersonal conflicts, I would not want to join such a board.

If, however, they obtain an attorney that thinks that there is a possibility of legal action, you may put me in contact with them and I can provide a written parliamentary opinion and/or expert testimony.  As above, unless the attorney can provide me with new information that I have not yet considered, my opinion and/or testimony might not be supportive of any successful legal action.

I'm sorry that you're dealing with such conflict in your effort to support the organization.”

 

At this point, I’m taking the CPP-T’s information with a grain of salt….

Edited March 31, 2023 at 02:21 PM by James Brown
Added paragraph.

[Richard Brown]

On 3/28/2023 at 8:24 AM, J. J. said:

Absent a bylaw or higher level rule and if your organization has adopted RONR, then see Section XX. 

 

 

@James Brownsince I know you have just ordered the 12th edition of RONR, the reference that JJ made should actually be to “CHAPTER XX” , not “section XX”. Chapter XX Is the chapter on discipline, made up, I believe, of sections 61, 62, and 63. I’m speaking from memory, not looking at the book.

[Richard Brown]

On 3/29/2023 at 9:40 AM, James Brown said:

While this isn’t a true “Expulsion”, it is at least a significant blow or limitation to these parents being able to volunteer or fundraise. They are also prohibited from running for office, since that is also considered some form of volunteering…

Does the action taken by the board specifically prohibit them from running for office? Or is that a conclusion you are arriving at based on your  analysis of the situation?

if possible, please do a copy and paste of the exact language of the restrictions or punishment imposed by the board. If it’s possible to post the language of the motion adopted by the board and also the language included in whatever letter may have been sent to the members  by the president or the secretary that would be most helpful. It may be that the notification from the president or secretary does not accurately reflect the actual motion adopted.

I believe firmly that if these members are being prohibited from running for office, the actions taken against them absolutely constitutes discipline. I believe that even a restriction on participating in certain other activities would constitute discipline, but I think it is almost an open and shut case that a prohibition on running for office constitutes discipline.  Perhaps it is not clear whether they are prohibited from running for office.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/31/2023 at 10:03 AM, James Brown said:

After providing the CPP-T with the additional information, this was their response…

“As I said, the only situations where Robert's Rules requires disciplinary proceedings of some kind (e.g., trial) are removal from membership and removal from an officer position (which would include any non-officer board positions), so the rules in these situations don't support any action against the board acting as it did, even if it seems extremely unfair.  Regardless of what the various volunteer activities are, the board appears to have the power to decide who participates in such activities.

I do NOT see anything in the rules that would prevent the parents from running for the board, if they chose to do so.  Personally, with such interpersonal conflicts, I would not want to join such a board.

If, however, they obtain an attorney that thinks that there is a possibility of legal action, you may put me in contact with them and I can provide a written parliamentary opinion and/or expert testimony.  As above, unless the attorney can provide me with new information that I have not yet considered, my opinion and/or testimony might not be supportive of any successful legal action.

I'm sorry that you're dealing with such conflict in your effort to support the organization.”

 

At this point, I’m taking the CPP-T’s information with a grain of salt….

Although the statement that: "The question as to whether or not the only situations where Robert's Rules requires disciplinary proceedings of some kind (e.g., trial) are removal from membership and removal from an officer position" is not accurate, the question as to whether or not disciplinary proceedings are required is somewhat beside the point.  The real issue involved is the question as to whether or not the Board was authorized to take the actions that it did, and the answer to this question is to be found in your bylaws. 

The person giving you advice has read your bylaws (I have not) and has apparently concluded that your bylaws give the Board the authority to do what it did.  This may well be the case.  However, if there is, in fact, some ambiguity in this regard, or if your Board is clearly not given such authority, then I renew my suggestion that you take the course of action that I recommended.