Removal of booster members

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/24/2023 at 10:38 PM, James Brown said:

Note of Urgency: The election is in 2 days, and will be the first opportunity of General Boosters/Members to hear about this matter. ANY advice would be of great assistance. I am guessing that your responses will be much in the same vein as before, as this new information doesn't change the fact that the board has not followed the bylaws or parliamentary procedures.

My advice remains the same as the advice which I gave you on March 30. That advice was:

"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them in some detail) are null and void, and if this motion is not adopted, that you then move to have these actions rescinded.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."

However, in view of the most recent action of your Board, it may be that the parents involved may prefer that the matter be dropped, particularly if they did sign the "Volunteer Agreement and Code of Conduct" to which you refer.  You will need to consult with them.

 

 

[Josh Martin]

On 4/24/2023 at 9:38 PM, James Brown said:

Contrary to your assertion at our meeting, volunteering is not an entitlement or right; it is a privilege. The Code of Conduct, signed by all parents, grants the Board the power to revoke all volunteer opportunities for conduct that violates the expectations outlined therein. However, in spite of the fact that we feel completely justified in the actions taken in recent months, this Board is willing to modify the terms of the sanctions imposed in December. With the exception of chaperone duties, we are willing to reinstate all other volunteer opportunities effective June 1, 2023. The rationale for this decision is as follows:

I expect that you won't like my answer, but as explained previously, I generally agree with the board that "volunteering is not an entitlement or right; it is a privilege," and that the board has the authority, without formal disciplinary procedures, to remove members from volunteer opportunities. The one exception is the members' eligibility to be elected as members of the board which, in my view, is not within the authority of the board to remove and would require formal disciplinary procedures.

If the society disagrees with this and believes that either the board lacks the authority to take the actions in question or that the board has the authority but did not follow the proper procedures, then a member could raise a Point of Order concerning this matter, followed by an Appeal if necessary, and the membership will ultimately be the judge of the society's rules.

Because elections are also happening at this meeting, it might also be prudent to also (or instead) work on electing board members with a different view of this matter and, in the long run, amend the society's rules so that it says what the society wants them to say. In addition to clarifying the rules concerning disciplinary procedures, we are also told there is a "Code of Conduct" that apparently "most parents ignore" and (until now) there "is no oversight to ensure compliance." This would seem to be another area of the rules which the society may wish to review.

Edited April 25, 2023 at 11:53 AM by Josh Martin

[James Brown]

On 4/25/2023 at 7:50 AM, Josh Martin said:

I expect that you won't like my answer, but as explained previously, I generally agree with the board that "volunteering is not an entitlement or right; it is a privilege," and that the board has the authority, without formal disciplinary procedures, to remove members from volunteer opportunities. The one exception is the members' eligibility to be elected as members of the board which, in my view, is not within the authority of the board to remove and would require formal disciplinary procedures.

If the society disagrees with this and believes that either the board lacks the authority to take the actions in question or that the board has the authority but did not follow the proper procedures, then a member could raise a Point of Order concerning this matter, followed by an Appeal if necessary, and the membership will ultimately be the judge of the society's rules.

Because elections are also happening at this meeting, it might also be prudent to also (or instead) work on electing board members with a different view of this matter and, in the long run, amend the society's rules so that it says what the society wants them to say. In addition to clarifying the rules concerning disciplinary procedures, we are also told there is a "Code of Conduct" that apparently "most parents ignore" and (until now) there "is no oversight to ensure compliance." This would seem to be another area of the rules which the society may wish to review.

@Josh Martin, I understand your position. Here is my concern. 

a. In the original removal letter, the board mentioned a document called the “Parent Behavior Expectations” which is entirely separate from the “Code of Conduct”, which is now being mentioned. When I say the parents ignore it, I mean they don’t even sign it. How can 1 set of parents be held to something when the rest are very clearly not?

b. As stated in the new “compromise letter” with “reduced limits” the June 1st date is still far outside of the election date. So basically until June 1st the full sanctions are still in place, meaning ZERO volunteering and they also cannot run for a position on the board.

While I understand that you see a difference, the board VERY clearly does not. For the board, elimination of volunteering privileges and rights as members (to run) are the same.

[James Brown]

On 4/25/2023 at 7:48 AM, Dan Honemann said:

My advice remains the same as the advice which I gave you on March 30. That advice was:

"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."

However, in view of the most recent action of your Board, it may be that the parents involved may prefer that the matter be dropped, particularly if they did sign the "Volunteer Agreement and Code of Conduct" to which you refer.  You will need to consult with them.

 

 

@Dan Honemann, the Code isn’t mandatory, and as the band director has stated it is “just something we like to have parents do if we can”.

I’m curious… I thought Bylaws and RONR would supersede a Code that isn’t being adhered to or generally has no oversight?

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/25/2023 at 9:57 AM, James Brown said:

@Dan Honemann, the Code isn’t mandatory, and as the band director has stated it is “just something we like to have parents do if we can”.

I’m curious… I thought Bylaws and RONR would supersede a Code that isn’t being adhered to or generally has no oversight?

Mr. Brown, the advice which I gave you is the best I can do based upon the facts which you have supplied. I am expressing no opinion concerning the validity or invalidity of the "Volunteer Agreement and Code of Conduct" to which you have referred.

[Josh Martin]

On 4/25/2023 at 8:16 AM, James Brown said:

a. In the original removal letter, the board mentioned a document called the “Parent Behavior Expectations” which is entirely separate from the “Code of Conduct”, which is now being mentioned. When I say the parents ignore it, I mean they don’t even sign it.

Nothing in RONR requires that rules be signed in order for the rules to be binding.

On 4/25/2023 at 8:16 AM, James Brown said:

How can 1 set of parents be held to something when the rest are very clearly not?

Seems like a philosophical question, not a parliamentary one.

On 4/25/2023 at 8:16 AM, James Brown said:

b. As stated in the new “compromise letter” with “reduced limits” the June 1st date is still far outside of the election date. So basically until June 1st the full sanctions are still in place, meaning ZERO volunteering and they also cannot run for a position on the board.

While I understand that you see a difference, the board VERY clearly does not. For the board, elimination of volunteering privileges and rights as members (to run) are the same.

I concur that the board's action, with respect to the prohibition against running for the board, is not valid. The remainder of the action, in my view, is valid. In the event one of these members run for the board and the chair rules that the member is ineligible, a Point of Order or Appeal can and should, in my view, be raised concerning that matter, and it should be found that the members are eligible.

The membership is also free to raise a Point of Order or Appeal concerning the other matters, notwithstanding my views on the subject. And again, the solution to this in the long run is to adopt clear rules on this subject.

On 4/25/2023 at 8:57 AM, James Brown said:

I’m curious… I thought Bylaws and RONR would supersede a Code that isn’t being adhered to or generally has no oversight?

There is no doubt that the bylaws supersede the Code of Conduct. To the extent that this document was properly adopted as a rule of the society, however, it would take precedence over RONR.

If the code was properly adopted, the fact that the code has not been adhered to is immaterial. Lots of organizations improperly ignore their rules for years. Nonetheless, the rules are still binding, and can and should begin to be enforced as soon as possible, unless and until the organization rescinds or amends the rules.

Edited April 25, 2023 at 05:42 PM by Josh Martin

[James Brown]

On 4/25/2023 at 10:07 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Mr. Brown, the advice which I gave you is the best I can do based upon the facts which you have supplied. I am expressing no opinion concerning the validity or invalidity of the "Volunteer Agreement and Code of Conduct" to which you have referred.

Mr. Honemann, I appreciate your advice. I’m not asking about your opinion on the validity of the Code of Conduct, as it’s being used in this matter.

What I am asking is in the hierarchy of Federal, State, Bylaws, RONR, etc… do you know where an Agreement or Code would fall in that category?

Obviously, there are details in this matter that I’m aware of that I won’t bore you with here. What I have witnessed is that this is ultimately a result of a personality conflict between a few board members and these parents. What I have witnessed is that the board has not followed procedures from the start. They have made excuses and continue to manufacture reasons to explain why or how they removed the parents.

The removed parents are aware of this and have no desire to stop now. They’re desire is to make the members aware at the election of the board’s wrong decisions.

Again, I truly appreciate your advice and am simply trying to understand the best avenue to take here… Thank you for your response in March and today.

[James Brown]

On 4/25/2023 at 12:22 PM, Josh Martin said:

Nothing in RONR requires that rules be signed in order for the rules to be binding.

Seems like a philosophical question, not a parliamentary one.

I concur that the board's action, with respect to the prohibition against running for the board, is not valid. The remainder of the action, in my view, is valid. In the event one of these members run for the board and the chair rules that the member is ineligible, a Point of Order or Appeal can and should, in my view, be raised concerning that matter, and it should be found that the members are eligible.

The membership is also free to raise a Point of Order or Appeal concerning the other matters, notwithstanding my views on the subject. And again, the solution to this in the long run is to adopt clear rules on this subject.

There is no doubt that the bylaws supersede the Code of Conduct. To the extent that this document was properly adopted as a rule of the society, however, it would take precedence over RONR.

If the code was properly adopted, the fact that the code has not been adhered to is immaterial. Lots of organizations improperly ignore their rules for years. Nonetheless, the rules are still binding, and can should begin to be enforced as soon as possible, unless and until the organization rescinds or amends the rules.

“There is no doubt that the bylaws supersede the Code of Conduct. To the extent that this document was properly adopted as a rule of the society, however, it would take precedence over RONR.

If the code was properly adopted, the fact that the code has not been adhered to is immaterial. Lots of organizations improperly ignore their rules for years. Nonetheless, the rules are still binding, and can should begin to be enforced as soon as possible, unless and until the organization rescinds or amends the rules.”

@Josh Martin - Thank you! That’s what I was trying to figure out… @Dan Honemann - my apologies. My wording in my question to you was confusing. Thank you both for your patience.

I just want to get this right. The meeting is tomorrow night. I personally believe that the removal of the parents was harassment in the guise of discipline. There are several parents who share in this belief. We all want to get it right tomorrow and moving forward.

[Josh Martin]

On 4/25/2023 at 11:26 AM, James Brown said:

What I am asking is in the hierarchy of Federal, State, Bylaws, RONR, etc… do you know where an Agreement or Code would fall in that category?

Presumably, such a document would be in the nature of special rules of order or standing rules, or some combination thereof.

Special rules of order rank below the bylaws but above RONR. Standing rules are rules which relate to administrative details, not parliamentary procedure, and as a result, such rules do not conflict with special rules of order or with RONR. See RONR (12th ed.) Section 2 for more information on types of rules.

[James Brown]

On 4/25/2023 at 1:46 PM, Josh Martin said:

Presumably, such a document would be in the nature of special rules of order or standing rules, or some combination thereof.

Special rules of order rank below the bylaws but above RONR. Standing rules are rules which relate to administrative details, not parliamentary procedure, and as a result, such rules do not conflict with special rules of order or with RONR. See RONR (12th ed.) Section 2 for more information on types of rules.

“Special rules of order, standing rules, combinations”…?

Would the “Code” need to be designated as such? Or included in the Bylaws as a subsection?

[Josh Martin]

On 4/25/2023 at 1:20 PM, James Brown said:

Would the “Code” need to be designated as such? Or included in the Bylaws as a subsection?

No to both questions.

Certainly, the organization could specifically use the terms "special rules of order" or "standing rules" to designate such rules, although this is not required. Whether a rule is a special rule of order or standing rule will depend on its nature.

The organization also certainly could incorporate the code into the bylaws if it wishes, although doing so would require following the procedures to amend the bylaws, and if this is done the code would then be a part of the bylaws rather than special rules of order or standing rules.

Edited April 25, 2023 at 06:50 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

The board claims that they are granted power by the Code of Conduct, but the language quoted just says violations can result in penalties, but does not empower anyone to impose them, if I'm reading that right.`  In any event, the board's powers come from the bylaws, not a Code of Conduct presumably written by the board.  The board can't write a document granting itself power it does not have.

In any case, I think you will need a thorough understanding of how Points of Order and Appeals work. You have been encouraged to refer to those chapters in RONR, and it sounds like you will need to use them at the meeting.  If you have any questions on them, please ask.

 

[James Brown]

On 4/25/2023 at 3:05 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

The board claims that they are granted power by the Code of Conduct, but the language quoted just says violations can result in penalties, but does not empower anyone to impose them, if I'm reading that right.`  In any event, the board's powers come from the bylaws, not a Code of Conduct presumably written by the board.  The board can't write a document granting itself power it does not have.

In any case, I think you will need a thorough understanding of how Points of Order and Appeals work. You have been encouraged to refer to those chapters in RONR, and it sounds like you will need to use them at the meeting.  If you have any questions on them, please ask.

 

@Gary Novosielski, thank you! I will definitely reach out. Based on the suggestions in this topic and what I have been reading in RONR so far, I feel I have a decent understanding.

[James Brown]

On 4/25/2023 at 3:05 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

The board claims that they are granted power by the Code of Conduct, but the language quoted just says violations can result in penalties, but does not empower anyone to impose them, if I'm reading that right.`  In any event, the board's powers come from the bylaws, not a Code of Conduct presumably written by the board.  The board can't write a document granting itself power it does not have.

In any case, I think you will need a thorough understanding of how Points of Order and Appeals work. You have been encouraged to refer to those chapters in RONR, and it sounds like you will need to use them at the meeting.  If you have any questions on them, please ask.

 

I believe this is a suitable example of how the Point of Order could be raised at the meeting tomorrow…

“Point of Order is raised due to the board exceeding its authority, ignoring our bylaws and parliamentary procedures. In addition they have made damaging decisions based on personality conflicts that have resulted in members having their rights improperly abridged. Examples of these violations per Section 23:6 in RONR (12th edition) include removing members as volunteers, ignoring the rights of the members up to and including running for a position on the band board. Although the board has REPEATEDLY claimed that they do have the authority to discipline members, they do not. There is NOTHING in our bylaws supporting this false and misleading claim, and there is NOTHING in RONR to support their claims either.

Due to these improper actions, I am making a motion that these improper decisions be made null and void, per Section 23:9 in RONR (12th edition).”

I highly suspect at this point that the chair will find the Point of Order “not well taken” - if they’re even aware of how to properly address the situation. Another member will rise and appeal the chair’s position, at which time the question is taken from the chair and vested in the assembly for final decision per Section 24:1.

I believe this is the proper way to do this…

Where I’m lacking confidence in is the next steps as it deals with debate, no debate, voting, etc.

Is there debate after the Point of Order is called, or is there simply a vote to make the bad decisions null and void?

[Dan Honemann]

Mr. Brown, raising a point of order of order and making the sort of motion that I advised you to make at your membership meeting are two entirely different things and cannot be done at the same time as you seem to be intent on doing.  

There may not come a time during the meeting when a relevant point of order can be raised, and so I suggested making the sort of motion I described, which you may do at any time during the meeting when no business is pending. Such a motion must be seconded, is debatable and amendable, and requires a majority vote to adopt. If, instead of stating the question on your motion, the chair rules that it is not in order, then you may appeal the ruling of the chair (read Section 24 relating to appeals).

Hopefully, you may soon get a fuller and more detailed response from Mr. Martin.

[James Brown]

On 4/26/2023 at 6:14 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Mr. Brown, raising a point of order of order and making the sort of motion that I advised you to make at your membership meeting are two entirely different things and cannot be done at the same time as you seem to be intent on doing.  

There may not come a time during the meeting when a relevant point of order can be raised, and so I suggested making the sort of motion I described, which you may do at any time during the meeting when no business is pending. Such a motion must be seconded, is debatable and amendable, and requires a majority vote to adopt. If, instead of stating the question on your motion, the chair rules that it is not in order, then you may appeal the ruling of the chair (read Section 24 relating to appeals).

Hopefully, you may soon get a fuller and more detailed response from Mr. Martin.

Since the meeting is an election I’m not sure that any business will be discussed… I want to properly follow procedure, and welcome advice on how to do so.

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/26/2023 at 6:39 AM, James Brown said:

Since the meeting is an election I’m not sure that any business will be discussed… I want to properly follow procedure, and welcome advice on how to do so.

This raises an entirely different question which I don't remember being addressed. The bylaws which you posted say virtually nothing at all about meetings of your membership, simply referring in one instance to an election meeting. This is highly unusual, and suggests that there may be another relevant and controlling document somewhere (constitution, charter, applicable law, something else) which does so. Is there?

[James Brown]

On 4/26/2023 at 6:58 AM, Dan Honemann said:

This raises an entirely different question which I don't remember being addressed. The bylaws which you posted say virtually nothing at all about meetings of your membership, simply referring in one instance to an election meeting. This is highly unusual, and suggests that there may be another relevant and controlling document somewhere (constitution, charter, applicable law, something else) which does so. Is there?

There is not. We have only the Bylaws. As I’ve stated before, in 2019 we had 6 “general booster meetings” included in our bylaws.

In 2021, those were removed and now we have ONLY the Election meeting and the Annual budget meeting. All other meetings are board meetings, and they are relentless about keeping it that way.
 

The board has been incredibly difficult to “pin down” for any type of meeting.

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/26/2023 at 7:11 AM, James Brown said:

There is not. We have only the Bylaws. As I’ve stated before, in 2019 we had 6 “general booster meetings” included in our bylaws.

In 2021, those were removed and now we have ONLY the Election meeting and the Annual budget meeting. All other meetings are board meetings, and they are relentless about keeping it that way.
 

The board has been incredibly difficult to “pin down” for any type of meeting.

Well then, I suggest that you go ahead and make the motion that I suggested that you make, either before the election process begins or immediately after it is concluded, and if it is declared to be not in order, appeal from this ruling on the grounds that there is nothing at all in your rules that says that it is not in order. Your bylaws adopt RONR as your parliamentary authority, and RONR makes it plain (in 3:16) that new business is in order whenever the assembly has no prescribed order of business. 

Of course, if one or more of your aggrieved parents is nominated for an office during your meeting's election process and that nomination is declared to be ineligible based upon the Board's unauthorized action, a point of order concerning the invalidity of that action of the Board can be raised at that time.

[James Brown]

On 4/26/2023 at 7:53 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Well then, I suggest that you go ahead and make the motion that I suggested that you make, either before the election process begins or immediately after it is concluded, and if it is declared to be not in order, appeal from this ruling on the grounds that there is nothing at all in your rules that says that it is not in order. Your bylaws adopt RONR as your parliamentary authority, and RONR makes it plain (in 3:16) that new business is in order whenever the assembly has no prescribed order of business. 

Of course, if one or more of your aggrieved parents is nominated for an office during your meeting's election process and that nomination is declared to be ineligible based upon the Board's unauthorized action, a point of order concerning the invalidity of that action of the Board can be raised at that time.

So… this needs to be in 2 parts, or one or the other?

Regarding the motion to make the board’s disciplinary actions null and void: “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.”

Regarding the board not allowing the members to run for office - if they choose - that is where calling the Point of Order comes in to play?

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/26/2023 at 8:30 AM, James Brown said:

So… this needs to be in 2 parts, or one or the other?

Regarding the motion to make the board’s disciplinary actions null and void: “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.”

Regarding the board not allowing the members to run for office - if they choose - that is where calling the Point of Order comes in to play?

These "2 parts" you refer to are simply two entirely different things which, if successfully employed, accomplish somewhat similar results.

The second one you mention can occur only if one or more of your aggrieved parents is nominated, and involves only one aspect of your Board's allegedly invalid actions. 

The first concerns a motion that can be made at any time when no business is pending and can cover some or all of the Board's actions that you allege are invalid. If the chair rules that this motion is not in order, an appeal can be taken from this ruling. No point of order needs to be made because the chair has already made a ruling from which an appeal can be taken. 

It is conceivable that both could occur at this meeting if they do not involve substantially the same question, but this is rather unlikely.

 

[James Brown]

On 4/26/2023 at 9:06 AM, Dan Honemann said:

These "2 parts" you refer to are simply two entirely different things which, if successfully employed, accomplish somewhat similar results.

The second one you mention can occur only if one or more of your aggrieved parents is nominated, and involves only one aspect of your Board's allegedly invalid actions. 

The first concerns a motion that can be made at any time when no business is pending and can cover some or all of the Board's actions that you allege are invalid. If the chair rules that this motion is not in order, an appeal can be taken from this ruling. No point of order needs to be made because the chair has already made a ruling from which an appeal can be taken. 

It is conceivable that both could occur at this meeting if they do not involve substantially the same question, but this is rather unlikely.

 

Thank you for the clarification!

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/26/2023 at 9:41 AM, James Brown said:

Thank you for the clarification!

But please accept my apologies, because that response of mine to the "second part" leaves much to be desired.

The "second one" can occur if the chair actually rules that the nomination is not in order, in which event an appeal can be taken directly from this ruling. But if, for example, no nomination is made but write-in votes are cast for one or more of the aggrieved parents and these votes are recorded by the tellers as being illegal because they are cast for ineligible candidates a point of order can promptly be raised that this action by the tellers is improper and that these candidates are, indeed, eligible candidates.

This explanation may still leave something to be desired and, as I said previously, perhaps someone will provide one that is more comprehensive. 🙂

[James Brown]

On 4/26/2023 at 10:13 AM, Dan Honemann said:

But please accept my apologies, because that response of mine to the "second part" leaves much to be desired.

The "second one" can occur if the chair actually rules that the nomination is not in order, in which event an appeal can be taken directly from this ruling. But if, for example, no nomination is made but write-in votes are cast for one or more of the aggrieved parents and these votes are recorded by the tellers as being illegal because they are cast for ineligible candidates a point of order can promptly be raised that this action by the tellers is improper and that these candidates are, indeed, eligible candidates.

This explanation may still leave something to be desired and, as I said previously, perhaps someone will provide one that is more comprehensive. 🙂

Mr. Honemann, I appreciate all of your assistance in this topic. Thank you for the additional feedback. 🙂 Ultimately, my goal is that this matter be brought to light. Someone recently told me that “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”.

In the several years I’ve been a part of this mostly wonderful program there has NEVER been a situation like this. The meeting tonight will be a first for MANY. It can potentially get ugly. My goal is to avoid the drama, and bring to light the facts of the matter.

Mainly that regardless of the personality issues between members of the board and members of the organization, bylaws were not followed, parliamentary procedures were ignored, and the rights of members have been abridged or even violated.

I’ve never addressed the boosters in this type of setting before. I am nervous. Many prayers are being made today I can assure you 😅

Edited April 26, 2023 at 02:39 PM by James Brown
Typo

[Dan Honemann]

Since I have a minute, I'll add that, as a matter of fact, it will be in order to raise a point of order concerning the unauthorized action of the Board in declaring that the parents are ineligible for office (assuming that they did in fact do so) at any time while the elections are the pending business.  You can raise this point of order just as soon as the process has begun, and even when another member has the floor (see 23:2(3)) if you wish to do so.