Chair Refusing To Allow Elected Members To Sit On His Board

[Lanie]

Michigan Libertarians again.  We had a convention on Mar 09.  The chair of the party did not chair the convention, preferring to make and argue motions from the floor.   One of the motions was to challenge an entire affiliate's delegation, and the other was to keep 4 members from being seated as delegates after their suspensions were rescinded.    Both the motion and the challenge failed, and in that process the body voted to interpret a bylaw in a manner that he strongly disagrees with. 

After the 4 members were seated as delegates, the credentials report was updated to reflect their status as delegates.  The delegation then broke off into local affiliate caucuses and elected their Executive Committee representatives.  No objections or points of order were raised at that time.  2 of the members elected to the EC seats were subjects of the failed attempts to prevent them from being seated.   Our bylaws and RONR indicate that they became board members at the close of the convention. 

At the next board meeting, 03/10, the "chair" announced he was going to file an appeal with the Judicial Committee and overturn the decision of the delegates at convention and in the meantime, he was not going to seat those representatives.  As they were already seated, he clearly has no such authority to do any such thing, but he refused to allow them to participate in the meeting. 

Last night, at the 04/14 board meeting, he again refused to allow those delegates to speak or vote, again saying that he intended to file an appeal with the Judicial Committee.  The voting is especially important, because their votes would have changed several outcomes.  At least 2 board members tried to explain the bylaws arguments, but he refused to entertain it.  He did allow the board to vote to uphold his decision, which amounts to just another violation of the bylaws.

This isn't an argument about the limits of the judicial committee power.  My questions are:

1. Is there anything a minority can actually do to restrain a majority who refuses to adhere to their own rules?    

2. As the votes of those members would have changed the outcome on some significant actions, what happens to those actions?  










 

Edited April 15, 2024 at 02:18 PM by Lanie

[Josh Martin]

On 4/15/2024 at 8:04 AM, Lanie said:

1. Is there anything a minority can actually do to restrain a majority who refuses to adhere to their own rules?    

Expressing no view on whether this is an accurate description of the present situation, the ultimate answer to this question is "No," at least as a matter of parliamentary law.

The majority ultimately has the authority to interpret its own rules. The presumption in RONR is that most of the members want to follow the rules. RONR is just a book, and has no capacity to enforce the rules on its own - only the assembly can enforce them. In the situation that a majority chooses to ignore its rules, or interpret them in a manner not consistent with their good faith interpretation, there is ultimately nothing as a parliamentary or practical matter that can prevent this.

Depending on the type of assembly and organization, there may (or may not) be recourse by appealing to a higher authority, such as a parent assembly, parent organization, or the courts, but such questions are beyond the scope of RONR and this forum.

On 4/15/2024 at 8:04 AM, Lanie said:

At the next board meeting, 03/10, the "chair" announced he was going to file an appeal with the Judicial Committee and overturn the decision of the delegates at convention and in the meantime, he was not going to seat those delegates.  As they were already seated, he clearly has no such authority to do any such thing, but he refused to allow them to participate in the meeting. 

Setting aside the merits of this ruling (on which I express no view), I am inclined to agree the chair had no authority to make a ruling concerning this matter at a meeting of the Executive Committee. The chair appears to be alleging a violation of the rules occurred during the convention. The convention is the superior body to the Executive Committee, and the Executive Committee has no authority to overturn the decisions of the convention. Under RONR, only the convention itself could entertain such a Point of Order.

I understand that, under your bylaws, the Judicial Committee may also have the authority to address this matter, but even supposing that to be true, the Executive Committee is obliged to follow the convention's decision unless and until it is overturned by a body with the authority to do so. The chair cannot simply assume in advance that the Judicial Committee will make a particular ruling.

On 4/15/2024 at 8:04 AM, Lanie said:

2. As the votes of those members would have changed the outcome on some significant actions, what happens to those actions?  

If members are improperly denied the right to vote (and I understand that these persons were certainly denied the right to vote, but whether this was done properly is in dispute), this constitutes a continuing breach which causes the affected motions to be invalid if the number of such persons is sufficient to have potentially affected the result.

"If one or more members have been denied the right to vote, or the right to attend all or part of a regular or properly called meeting during which a vote was taken while a quorum was present, a point of order concerning the action taken in denying the basic rights of the individual members can be raised so long as the decision arrived at as a result of the vote has continuing force and effect. If there is any possibility that the members' vote(s) would have affected the outcome, then the results of the vote must be declared invalid if the point of order is sustained. If there is no such possibility, the results of the vote itself can be made invalid only if the point of order is raised immediately following the chair's announcement of the vote. If the vote was such that the number of members excluded from participating would not have affected the outcome, a member may wish, in the appropriate circumstances, to move to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted (35), to move to Reconsider (37), or to renew a motion (38), arguing that comments in debate by the excluded members could have led to a different result; but the action resulting from the vote is not invalidated by a ruling in response to a point of order raised at a later time." RONR (12th ed.) 

So far as RONR is concerned, a Point of Order concerning such matters may be raised at a meeting of the assembly in question or during a meeting of a superior body. As I understand the facts, this relates to an issue occurring during a meeting of the Executive Committee. So a Point of Order could be raised during a meeting of the Executive Committee or during a meeting of the convention.

I also understand that, under your bylaws, the Judicial Committee may have the authority to address this matter, so a challenge concerning this matter could also be filed under those procedures.

Edited April 15, 2024 at 02:02 PM by Josh Martin