Chair Refusing To Allow Elected Members To Sit On His Board

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/13/2024 at 3:53 PM, Josh Martin said:

Yes, this is all correct with respect to the rules in RONR, but this organization's bylaws include a procedure in which "appeals" of decisions are submitted to the Judicial Committee.

(My understanding is that this is supplemental to the Point of Order and Appeal process in RONR, and not a replacement for it.)

That is my understanding as well, but the OP's response seemed to suggest that the use of RONR's immediate Appeal process was not generally known there.  I should not have implied that there was anything wrong with appealing in writing to the JC, except that it introduced an avoidable delay.

[J. J.]

On 5/13/2024 at 3:23 PM, Josh Martin said:

I imagine it would ultimately have to be fixed with disciplinary proceedings.

Well, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the board's appropriate course of action under these bylaws.

Under the circumstance, where the convention is dissolved, who brings the disciplinary action? 

 

[1Angela]

On 5/13/2024 at 3:36 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

That's not how Appeals (§24) are done.  If the chair issues a ruling which some members believe is incorrect, a member rises (right then and there), says "I appeal from the decision of the chair." and another member says "Second".  The chair doesn't rule this well taken or not, he simply must place it before the assembly. In debate on an Appeal, the Chair speaks first, and last if desired. Other members speak no more than once once.  Unlike most motions, a tie vote sustains the chair's decision.

 

Please forgive any sarcastic overtones.  

It went like this:

Chair: States that despite 2 different committees and a convention all declaring that he is wrong on the way he is interpreting these bylaws, everybody else in the party is wrong  and he intends to file an appeal with the JC at some point.   In the meantime, he is appointing Person A, whom he declares the rightful seatholder to Seat A and not allowing anybody to sit in Seat B.

 A member addresses the chair as follows:

MEMBER A: I appeal from the decision of the chair. (Second.)

CHAIR: The appeal is not well taken. <mutes member> 

MEMBER B: I also appeal from the decision of the chair. <Second>

CHAIR: The appeal is not well taken. <mutes member> 

As chaos begins, he again lectures us that the bylaws are being interpreted incorrectly despite the plain language that says otherwise,  reiterates his positions and calls for a vote affirming his decision on Seat B.  When a question arises as to why there will be no vote on Seat A, he states it is because that there is a person seated in that chair and then mutes everybody except for the secretary, who takes the roll call vote.
 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/13/2024 at 4:01 PM, 1Angela said:

Please forgive any sarcastic overtones.  

It went like this:

Chair: States that despite 2 different committees and a convention all declaring that he is wrong on the way he is interpreting these bylaws, everybody else in the party is wrong  and he intends to file an appeal with the JC at some point.   In the meantime, he is appointing Person A, whom he declares the rightful seatholder to Seat A and not allowing anybody to sit in Seat B.

 A member addresses the chair as follows:

MEMBER A: I appeal from the decision of the chair. (Second.)

CHAIR: The appeal is not well taken. <mutes member> 

MEMBER B: I also appeal from the decision of the chair. <Second>

CHAIR: The appeal is not well taken. <mutes member> 

As chaos begins, he again lectures us that the bylaws are being interpreted incorrectly despite the plain language that says otherwise,  reiterates his positions and calls for a vote affirming his decision on Seat B.  When a question arises as to why there will be no vote on Seat A, he states it is because that there is a person seated in that chair and then mutes everybody except for the secretary, who takes the roll call vote.
 

 

Well, you're right, that's some kind'a chaos you got there.

That chair needs fired, as we say in PA.

[J. J.]

On 5/13/2024 at 4:01 PM, 1Angela said:

Please forgive any sarcastic overtones.  

It went like this:

Chair: States that despite 2 different committees and a convention all declaring that he is wrong on the way he is interpreting these bylaws, everybody else in the party is wrong  and he intends to file an appeal with the JC at some point.   In the meantime, he is appointing Person A, whom he declares the rightful seatholder to Seat A and not allowing anybody to sit in Seat B.

 A member addresses the chair as follows:

MEMBER A: I appeal from the decision of the chair. (Second.)

CHAIR: The appeal is not well taken. <mutes member> 

MEMBER B: I also appeal from the decision of the chair. <Second>

CHAIR: The appeal is not well taken. <mutes member> 

As chaos begins, he again lectures us that the bylaws are being interpreted incorrectly despite the plain language that says otherwise,  reiterates his positions and calls for a vote affirming his decision on Seat B.  When a question arises as to why there will be no vote on Seat A, he states it is because that there is a person seated in that chair and then mutes everybody except for the secretary, who takes the roll call vote.
 

 

The ultimate decision of who interprets your bylaws is your Judicial Committee.  They get the final word. 

[J. J.]

On 5/13/2024 at 4:06 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Well, you're right, that's some kind'a chaos you got there.

That chair needs fired, as we say in PA.

And if his decision was correct?  Do you fire the convention? 

[Josh Martin]

On 5/13/2024 at 3:01 PM, J. J. said:

Under the circumstance, where the convention is dissolved, who brings the disciplinary action? 

I think you and I both know there are provisions in the bylaws of the party in question on the subject of disciplinary action, so I would advise the organization to follow those procedures.

On 5/13/2024 at 3:01 PM, 1Angela said:

It went like this:

Chair: States that despite 2 different committees and a convention all declaring that he is wrong on the way he is interpreting these bylaws, everybody else in the party is wrong  and he intends to file an appeal with the JC at some point.   In the meantime, he is appointing Person A, whom he declares the rightful seatholder to Seat A and not allowing anybody to sit in Seat B.

 A member addresses the chair as follows:

MEMBER A: I appeal from the decision of the chair. (Second.)

CHAIR: The appeal is not well taken. <mutes member> 

MEMBER B: I also appeal from the decision of the chair. <Second>

CHAIR: The appeal is not well taken. <mutes member> 

As chaos begins, he again lectures us that the bylaws are being interpreted incorrectly despite the plain language that says otherwise,  reiterates his positions and calls for a vote affirming his decision on Seat B.  When a question arises as to why there will be no vote on Seat A, he states it is because that there is a person seated in that chair and then mutes everybody except for the secretary, who takes the roll call vote.

Well, apparently there is a dispute over the facts as to what occurred at this meeting, which I am not in any position to resolve here.

One poster has alleged that no appeal was raised at the meeting.

Another poster has alleged that an appeal was raised at the meeting, to which the chair replied "The appeal is not well taken." This is not the proper response to an appeal, and this seems to be further evidence of misconduct on behalf of the chair.

(It appears the chair did eventually take a vote, although without permitting any debate, with respect to the ruling on Seat B, but did not take any vote on the appeal with respect to the ruling on Seat A.)

The next step under ordinary circumstances would be to remove the chair from presiding for the duration of the meeting, so that someone who is competent enough to properly process an appeal could handle the appeal.

Unfortunately, however, the chair appears to have also prevented members from properly seeking the floor, which is further evidence of misconduct by the chair.

While I ultimately leave to the assembly the proper determination of what to do with the chair, I would say that the facts presented here, to the extent they are correct, are extremely troubling, to put it politely.

Those persons who were present at the meeting will be in a better position to determine which set of facts mirrors what actually happened at the meeting.

On 5/13/2024 at 3:07 PM, J. J. said:

And if his decision was correct?

Without expressing any view on what this organization should do, because that is not my place, I would note that it is an entirely reasonable position to argue that a chair who acts beyond his authority should be fired even if it is ultimately found that the chair's opinion was correct.

On 5/13/2024 at 3:07 PM, J. J. said:

Do you fire the convention? 

I'm not aware of any mechanism to fire the convention.

[J. J.]

On 5/13/2024 at 4:34 PM, Josh Martin said:

I think you and I both know there are provisions in the bylaws of the party in question on the subject of disciplinary action, so I would advise the organization to follow those procedures.

Well, apparently there is a dispute over the facts as to what occurred at this meeting, which I am not in any position to resolve here.

 

I believe that the body in question supports the action. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/13/2024 at 4:07 PM, J. J. said:

And if his decision was correct?  Do you fire the convention? 

Well, his decision to rule an appeal not well taken was almost certainly not correct.

Edited May 14, 2024 at 01:16 AM by Gary Novosielski

[J. J.]

On 5/13/2024 at 9:15 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Well, his decision to rule an appeal not well taken was almost certainly not correct.

We won't know until the Judicial Committee rules. 

[1Angela]

On 5/13/2024 at 4:06 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Well, you're right, that's some kind'a chaos you got there.

That chair needs fired, as we say in PA.

 

For the record, the Chair has still not filed anything with the Judicial Committee.    JJ filed multiple appeals though.  

Edited May 14, 2024 at 12:42 PM by 1Angela

[J. J.]

On 5/14/2024 at 8:40 AM, 1Angela said:

 

For the record, the Chair has still not filed anything with the Judicial Committee.    JJ filed multiple appeals though.  

No, but one of the Board's member did.  I did file an appeal that could, indirectly, effect one of the seats in question. 

[J. J.]

On 5/13/2024 at 3:59 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

That is my understanding as well, but the OP's response seemed to suggest that the use of RONR's immediate Appeal process was not generally known there.  I should not have implied that there was anything wrong with appealing in writing to the JC, except that it introduced an avoidable delay.

It is, to the point that there were attempts to put appeals from the floor. 

[Wright Stuff]

On 5/13/2024 at 10:27 AM, Richard Brown said:

Language in the bylaws to give a subordinate body such as a board or committee or officer that authority would have to be clear and explicit.

Where is this requirement in RONR? The bylaws of one of my organizations are neither clear nor explicit. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/15/2024 at 12:26 AM, Wright Stuff said:

Where is this requirement in RONR? The bylaws of one of my organizations are neither clear nor explicit. 

49:5

[Richard Brown]

On 5/14/2024 at 11:26 PM, Wright Stuff said:

Where is this requirement in RONR? The bylaws of one of my organizations are neither clear nor explicit. 

 

On 5/15/2024 at 1:34 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

49:5

 

It’s also in other places in RONR, particularly 56:41. It is also discussed in several discussion threads in this forum regarding the powers of a subordinate board or committee, and on the main website in official interpretations 2006-12 and 2006-13.   https://robertsrules.com/official-interpretations/

Edited May 15, 2024 at 10:43 AM by Richard Brown
Added official interpretations and link

[J. J.]

On 5/15/2024 at 12:26 AM, Wright Stuff said:

Where is this requirement in RONR? The bylaws of one of my organizations are neither clear nor explicit. 

It would have to be clear, under the rules of interpretation, but I see nothing in RONR that would require it to be "explicit."  Under RONR, some things, very few, must be "expressly" stated in the bylaws to be valid; this not one of them. 

In this particular case, the language is express and explicit, to the point that a judge ruled it as such.  It is also not uncommon to assign a committee with that power in these organizations. 
 

[J. J.]

The JC, without if an appeal from the ruling of the chair could be raised, found that the people were invalidly elected and their selection was null and void.