Chair Refusing To Allow Elected Members To Sit On His Board

[1Angela]

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affiliate's delegation, and the other was to keep 4 members from being seated as delegates after their suspensions were rescinded.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

[1Angela]

Bumping this per JJ's request.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/8/2024 at 8:53 AM, 1Angela said:

Bumping this per JJ's request.

What in the world is this supposed to mean?

[1Angela]

On 5/8/2024 at 9:48 AM, Dan Honemann said:

What in the world is this supposed to mean?

In another venue, JJ told me that he would like to discuss this post but was unable to locate it in the forum.  "Bumping" is slang which means creating activity in a thread specifically to move it to the top of the forum again.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/8/2024 at 10:43 AM, 1Angela said:

In another venue, JJ told me that he would like to discuss this post but was unable to locate it in the forum.  "Bumping" is slang which means creating activity in a thread specifically to move it to the top of the forum again.

Thanks.

[J. J.]

Okay, the answer seems to be found in the bylaws.  

[Atul Kapur]

On 5/8/2024 at 4:25 PM, J. J. said:

Okay, the answer seems to be found in the bylaws.  

So do you intend to share with those of us who've been following?

[J. J.]

On 5/8/2024 at 5:15 PM, Atul Kapur said:

So do you intend to share with those of us who've been following?

The court determined that a committee established in the bylaws has the authority rule on bylaw violations; the question on if there enough votes of people ineligible to affect the result will be held before that committee tomorrow. 

At this point,  the chair of the organization is treating the seats as vacant until there is a resolution.

[J. J.]

https://lpedia.org/w/images/3/3f/MI_Bylaws_as_adopted_July_15%2C_2023.pdf

This index may prove useful:  https://lpedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Michigan_State_Party_Bylaws

[1Angela]

On 5/8/2024 at 5:27 PM, J. J. said:

The court determined that a committee established in the bylaws has the authority rule on bylaw violations; the question on if there enough votes of people ineligible to affect the result will be held before that committee tomorrow. 

At this point,  the chair of the organization is treating the seats as vacant until there is a resolution.

At the time of the original post, and also at the moment I am writing this, there has been no J C ruling on the matter.   (The Chair said he intended to appeal, but refused to seat the reps before any appeal was even filed.) 

My question to you still stands:  Where, in your opinion, does RONR or the bylaws give the chair the authority to treat the seats as vacant prior to the decision?      

Edited May 9, 2024 at 05:26 PM by 1Angela

[J. J.]

On 5/9/2024 at 1:23 PM, 1Angela said:

At the time of the original post, and also at the moment I am writing this, there has been no J C ruling on the matter.   (The Chair said he intended to appeal, but refused to seat the reps before any appeal was even filed.) 

My question to you still stands:  Where, in your opinion, does RONR or the bylaws give the chair the authority to treat the seats as vacant prior to the decision?      

IMO, if there is evidence that someone was not properly elected and there is a method of appealing that is not immediate, it is advisable for the person not to be seated (46:50).  Doing so opens the assembly up to liability; it may do so to the member as well.  It will be subject, initially, to a point of order and appeal in the assembly that is meeting.  This will only be the case where neither the electing body nor the board is the final internal word on the matter.

 

[1Angela]

On 5/9/2024 at 2:40 PM, J. J. said:

IMO, if there is evidence that someone was not properly elected and there is a method of appealing that is not immediate, it is advisable for the person not to be seated (46:50).  Doing so opens the assembly up to liability; it may do so to the member as well.  It will be subject, initially, to a point of order and appeal in the assembly that is meeting.  This will only be the case where neither the electing body nor the board is the final internal word on the matter.

 

But per our bylaws, they were already seated because the point of order and the appeal to the assembly (the convention body) resulted in an overwhelming vote in agreement with the plain language of the bylaw in question, thus settling the challenge when it arose, or so we thought.  

The way I see it, using your language above, ,because they had already been seated, where does the chair get the authority to refuse to allow them to speak or vote before any JC decision has been reached?  Our bylaws only make a case for a 2/3rds vote of the board to remove a member of the board, so you can see where I am confused. 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2024 at 07:09 PM by 1Angela

[J. J.]

On 5/9/2024 at 3:04 PM, 1Angela said:

But per our bylaws, they were already seated because the convention body overwhelmingly ruled in agreement with the plain language of the bylaw in question, thus settling the challenge when it arose, or so we thought.

Again I ask, because they had already been seated, where does the chair get the authority to refuse to allow them to speak or vote before any JC decision has been reached?  Our bylaws only make a case for a 2/3rds vote of the board to remove a member of the board, so you can see where I am confused. 

 

The convention is not the final word in your organization on bylaw violations.  Several parliamentarians opined, and a court ruled, that it was not.  You were a plaintiff, on the losing side, in that case. 

Now, if you feel that the chair has acted improperly, as one member has, file an appeal with the group that hears appeals.  I will see you there tonight, as I am a member and have filed something related. 

[1Angela]

On 5/9/2024 at 3:13 PM, J. J. said:

The convention is not the final word in your organization on bylaw violations.  Several parliamentarians opined, and a court ruled, that it was not.  You were a plaintiff, on the losing side, in that case. 

Now, if you feel that the chair has acted improperly, as one member has, file an appeal with the group that hears appeals.  I will see you there tonight, as I am a member and have filed something related. 

Moving a goalpost. 

 I specifically said I was not debating the authority of the Judicial Committee. 

  I am sorry if I am confused, but as you and the chair have repeatedly and angrily told me that this is all 100% proper according to the bylaws and RONR, I was simply asking you to clarify that statement.

1. The delegates were seated at the end of the convention as per our bylaws.

2.  No ruling from the JC has been issued.  

3.  Our bylaws apparently allow two ways to remove members from their chairs. One is a 2/3rds vote, and the other is by a JC ruling. 

So where does the chair get the authority to refuse to allow those elected officials to participate?  

[J. J.]

On 5/9/2024 at 4:08 PM, 1Angela said:

Moving a goalpost. 

 I specifically said I was not debating the authority of the Judicial Committee. 

  I am sorry if I am confused, but as you and the chair have repeatedly and angrily told me that this is all 100% proper according to the bylaws and RONR, I was simply asking you to clarify that statement.

1. The delegates were seated at the end of the convention as per our bylaws.

2.  No ruling from the JC has been issued.  

3.  Our bylaws apparently allow two ways to remove members from their chairs. One is a 2/3rds vote, and the other is by a JC ruling. 

So where does the chair get the authority to refuse to allow those elected officials to participate?  

You raised the issue.  The convention is, in this group's case, not final.

That comes from a finding by the chair, subject to appeal to the board, and more importantly, to the Judicial Committee, that the chair's ruling is invalid.  If the Judicial Committee was not this matter, I think you would have a point. 

Edited May 9, 2024 at 08:31 PM by J. J.

[1Angela]

On 5/9/2024 at 4:19 PM, J. J. said:

You raised the issue.  The convention is, in this group's case, not final.

That comes from a finding by the chair, subject to appeal to the board, and more importantly, to the Judicial Committee, that the election is invalid.  If the Judicial Committee was not this matter, I think you would have a point. 

Where does the chair get the right to make such a finding?   

 

Edited May 9, 2024 at 08:22 PM by 1Angela

[J. J.]

On 5/9/2024 at 4:20 PM, 1Angela said:

Where does the chair get the right to make such a finding?   

 

47:7.  Ypou can argue that he was wrong and appeal, initially to the board. 

[1Angela]

I only brought it up, and brought it here,  because you said it was correct and proper.  I am not concerned about the JC opinion, in no small part because none of them have any parliamentary experience.  I can live with them innocently coming to the wrong conclusion.  Heck, I do it all the time, which is why I lurk in these forums. 

 I was just curious as to how you personally arrived at your opinion. 

 47:7. seems to deal with the duties of a presiding officer.   Can you please quote the relevant paragraph and elaborate as to where the chair has the power to refuse to recognize an elected member of the board? 

Edited May 9, 2024 at 08:53 PM by 1Angela

[J. J.]

On 5/9/2024 at 4:52 PM, 1Angela said:

I only brought it up, and brought it here,  because you said it was correct and proper.  I am not concerned about the JC opinion, in no small part because none of them have any parliamentary experience.  I can live with them innocently coming to the wrong conclusion.  Heck, I do it all the time, which is why I lurk in these forums. 

 I was just curious as to how you personally arrived at your opinion. 

 47:7. seems to deal with the duties of a presiding officer.   Can you please quote the relevant paragraph and elaborate as to where the chair has the power to refuse to recognize an elected member of the board? 

I have no doubt that "The Judicial Committee shall decide cases involving alleged violations of these bylaws or resolutions." 

The chair can rule that the bylaws were violated per 47:7.  That the chair can do it under his own volition under 23:3, IMO subject to appeal.

[J. J.]

On 4/15/2024 at 9:59 AM, Josh Martin said:

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.

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.

 

I will disagree potentially.  Under RONR, solely, we do know that a convention has the final word.  This group does not operate solely under RONR.  In other words, it may be correct "parliamentary law" that the chair could not rule, but it may be incorrect as a matter of "parliamentary procedure." 

Once the bylaws assign the final authority to interpret the bylaws to some other body, that hierarchy of interpretation may no longer exist.  I don't know if I would rule that way, but I cannot call it impossible either. 

Edited May 9, 2024 at 10:24 PM by J. J.

[1Angela]

On 5/9/2024 at 5:06 PM, J. J. said:

 

The chair can rule that the bylaws were violated per 47:7.  That the chair can do it under his own volition under 23:3, IMO subject to appeal.

I think that this is again the answer to a different question, but it begs more.  

Why does 47:7 and 23:3 override 46:50, which says he can't?  And I will point out that the Chair did not raise a point of order as per 23:3.  He announced that he would not be recognizing those elected members as "a ruling of the chair,"  that was entirely proper per RONR, then refused to answer the multiple points of parliamentary inquiry that were raised.    

 

[J. J.]

On 5/10/2024 at 7:33 AM, 1Angela said:

I think that this is again the answer to a different question, but it begs more.  

Why does 47:7 and 23:3 override 46:50, which says he can't?  And I will point out that the Chair did not raise a point of order as per 23:3.  He announced that he would not be recognizing those elected members as "a ruling of the chair,"  that was entirely proper per RONR, then refused to answer the multiple points of parliamentary inquiry that were raised.    

 

46:50 says nothing of the sort, when a committee exists to review the matter. 

[Josh Martin]

On 5/9/2024 at 1:40 PM, J. J. said:

IMO, if there is evidence that someone was not properly elected and there is a method of appealing that is not immediate, it is advisable for the person not to be seated (46:50).  Doing so opens the assembly up to liability; it may do so to the member as well.  It will be subject, initially, to a point of order and appeal in the assembly that is meeting.  This will only be the case where neither the electing body nor the board is the final internal word on the matter.

JJ, respectfully, I am not sure where in 46:50 you see the claim that "if there is evidence that someone was not properly elected and there is a method of appealing that is not immediate, it is advisable for the person not to be seated."

On the contrary, it seems to me that 46:50 suggests precisely the opposite - that the elections are presumed to be valid unless and until the body with the power to decide that issue has done so.

"Because the voting body itself is the ultimate judge of election disputes, only that body has the authority to resolve them in the absence of a bylaw or special rule of order that specifically grants another body that authority. Thus, for example, when an election has been conducted at a membership meeting or in a convention of delegates, an executive board, even one that is given full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the body that conducted the election, may not entertain a point of order challenging, or direct a recount concerning, the announced election result. While an election dispute is immediately pending before the voting body, however, it may vote to refer the dispute to a committee or board to which it delegates power to resolve the dispute." RONR (12th ed.) 46:50

I don't necessarily know that your opinion is unreasonable with respect to this specific factual situation (although I disagree with it), but I don't see how you think 46:50 supports your position.

Now, obviously this is a situation that will potentially cause massive problems for the organization one way or the other, as either permitting ineligible persons to vote or denying eligible persons the right to vote may cause certain actions to be null and void. So I am inclined to think that either option potentially opens up the assembly to liability. Really, the only "safe" option is to conduct no business of substance where the votes of the members in question could affect the result until the matter is resolved. (Although that course of action may well be impossible or impractical for other reasons.)

But I understand that this issue may very quickly become moot, as I understand that the committee which actually has authority to resolve this issue under the bylaws may soon be resolving it.

On 5/9/2024 at 5:06 PM, J. J. said:

I will disagree potentially.  Under RONR, solely, we do know that a convention has the final word.  This group does not operate solely under RONR.  In other words, it may be correct "parliamentary law" that the chair could not rule, but it may be incorrect as a matter of "parliamentary procedure." 

Once the bylaws assign the final authority to interpret the bylaws to some other body, that hierarchy of interpretation may no longer exist.  I don't know if I would rule that way, but I cannot call it impossible either. 

JJ, while I do not disagree that an organization could provide in its bylaws that the board or its chair could make a (in this case, temporary) ruling concerning a question of order arising out of the convention, I am not persuaded that a rule in the bylaws granting a separate committee the authority to interpret the bylaws, in and of itself, grants the board or its chair any such authority.

The organization's bylaws quite clearly override 46:50 with respect to the Judicial Committee. No one is disputing that. The question is whether the bylaws also override 46:50 with respect to the authority of the board. The chair, in making a ruling on a question of order, is acting under authority delegated to him by the assembly over which he is currently presiding, and the assembly cannot delegate authority that it does not itself possess.

"By electing a presiding officer, the assembly delegates to him the authority and duty to make necessary rulings on questions of parliamentary law. But any two members have the right to Appeal from his decision on such a question. By one member making (or “taking”) the appeal and another seconding it, the question is taken from the chair and vested in the assembly for final decision." RONR (12th ed.) 24:1

Edited May 11, 2024 at 12:19 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 5/11/2024 at 8:19 AM, Josh Martin said:

JJ, while I do not disagree that an organization could provide in its bylaws that the board or its chair could make a (in this case, temporary) ruling concerning a question of order arising out of the convention, I am not persuaded that a rule in the bylaws granting a separate committee the authority to interpret the bylaws, in and of itself, grants the board or its chair any such authority.

The organization's bylaws quite clearly override 46:50 with respect to the Judicial Committee. No one is disputing that. The question is whether the bylaws also override 46:50 with respect to the authority of the board. The chair, in making a ruling on a question of order, is acting under authority delegated to him by the assembly over which he is currently presiding, and the assembly cannot delegate authority that it does not itself possess.

"By electing a presiding officer, the assembly delegates to him the authority and duty to make necessary rulings on questions of parliamentary law. But any two members have the right to Appeal from his decision on such a question. By one member making (or “taking”) the appeal and another seconding it, the question is taken from the chair and vested in the assembly for final decision." RONR (12th ed.) 24:1

I am saying that, in groups that give some body outside the assembly the ability to finally interpret the bylaws, the 24:1 rule may not apply.  It assembly, a convention, is clearly not "vested in the assembly for final decision,"  in this case. 

If the rule, "The Judicial Committee shall decide cases involving alleged violations of these bylaws or resolutions," was not there, I would agree with you.  Under RONR, and without such a rule, the convention clearly has the final ability to interpret the bylaws.  That, however, is not the case here. 

I think the Judicial Committee are the ones to make the decision on if the convention has, for lack of a better term, superior ability to interpret the bylaws over the board.  Likewise, they could determine that both the convention and the board have an equal ability to interpret the bylaws, and that any conflict must be resolved by the Judicial Committee; I would not find that an unreasonable interpretation of the bylaws.   In theory, the Judicial Committee could determine that the board has a superior ability to interpret the bylaws, though I would not find that reasonable.