Guest rsongbird Posted June 26, 2010 at 11:38 PM Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 at 11:38 PM My organization passed a Motion that a Disruptive Behavior Policy drawn up by the Board should be dismissed, and that the Board is not to work on ANY such Policy. (Our Bylaws say we follow Roberts Rules for expelling someone from membership).I've been told that it might be an illegal Motion because you can't forbid the Board from taking future actions. Two Board members thought that the Motion kept them from even following Roberts Rules for disruptive behavior problems, that the Motion tied their hands from handling disruptive behavior at all. If the second part of the Motion (not work on ANY such Policy) is illegal, (is it?), would just that portion of the Motion be voided, and the first portion (dismissing the original proposed Policy) be kept in effect? Or would the entire Motion be voided, requiring another vote deciding whether or not to accept the proposed Policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted June 27, 2010 at 12:10 AM Report Share Posted June 27, 2010 at 12:10 AM you can't forbid the Board from taking future actions."In any event, no action taken by the board can conflict with action taken by the assembly of the society; and except in matters placed by the bylaws exclusively under the control of the board, the society's assembly can give the board instructions which it must carry out, and can countermand any action of the board if it is not too late..." See RONR(10th ed.), p. 466, l. 7-13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted June 27, 2010 at 12:19 AM Report Share Posted June 27, 2010 at 12:19 AM If the second part of the Motion (not work on ANY such Policy) is illegal, (is it?)No, not in principle. the Motion tied their hands from handling disruptive behavior at all. I don't see that. Inside the board meeting, the chair and the assembly would be free to handle any disruptive behavior or indecorum in accordance with Robert's Rules. It only prevents the board from working on any such POLICY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted June 27, 2010 at 01:00 AM Report Share Posted June 27, 2010 at 01:00 AM I've been told that it might be an illegal Motion because you can't forbid the Board from taking future actions.That's not true. The board is subordinate to the general membership.See Official Interpretations 2006-12 and 2006-13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted June 27, 2010 at 01:04 AM Report Share Posted June 27, 2010 at 01:04 AM I understand very little of this post, but the words, "...a main motion..." and "...any action..." in RONR (10th ed.), p. 244, mean to me that the motion or action involved is not severable as to its parts. In other words, if any part of the motion or action is null and void, the whole motion or action is null and void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 27, 2010 at 10:20 AM Report Share Posted June 27, 2010 at 10:20 AM Inside the board meeting, the chair and the assembly would be free to handle any disruptive behavior or indecorum in accordance with Robert's Rules. And one of these days, hopefully, we will know what these rules are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 28, 2010 at 10:26 AM Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 at 10:26 AM And one of these days, hopefully, we will know what these rules are. I would like to make sure that Tim Wynn (and everyone else) understands that by "we" here I meant all of us. By my standards, a bit of clarification of the rules in this connection will be helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 28, 2010 at 11:53 AM Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 at 11:53 AM I would like to make sure that Tim Wynn (and everyone else) understands that by "we" here I meant all of us. By my standards, a bit of clarification of the rules in this connection will be helpful.Considering my questions on it over the past 8 months, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 28, 2010 at 01:51 PM Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 at 01:51 PM I would like to make sure that Tim Wynn (and everyone else) understands that by "we" here I meant all of us. By my standards, a bit of clarification of the rules in this connection will be helpful.Something to look forward to in the 11th edition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.