Appeal Won

[Guest Jack]

Member A Makes motion to let non-members attend meetings

Chair rules motion out of order because By Laws specifically state "only members of the Board are to attend Board meetings." Chair asked if Member A would like to pursue the motion as a consideration for change of the By Laws.

Member A declines to pursue By Law change, then appeals ruling of the Chair.

Member B seconds

Chair stands and announces appeal to Chairs ruling.

Vote is taken with 51 per cent sustaining the appeal

Chair is uncertain what to do - The motion, in effect, has changed the By Law without due consideration.

What action could the chair have taken further to protect the By Law?

[Trina]

Member A Makes motion to let non-members attend meetings

Chair rules motion out of order because By Laws specifically state "only members of the Board are to attend Board meetings." Chair asked if Member A would like to pursue the motion as a consideration for change of the By Laws.

Member A declines to pursue By Law change, then appeals ruling of the Chair.

Member B seconds

Chair stands and announces appeal to Chairs ruling.

Vote is taken with 51 per cent sustaining the appeal

Chair is uncertain what to do - The motion, in effect, has changed the By Law without due consideration.

What action could the chair have taken further to protect the By Law?

It sounds like the bylaw in question is in the nature of a rule of order, and therefore could properly be suspended by the two-thirds vote required when a motion is made to suspend the rules. Suspending the rules lasts only for the duration of the meeting (thus, the bylaw wouldn't be changed, just suspended for that one meeting).

Assuming the meeting is over, if the same issue comes up again at the next meeting, the chair could help the member define the motion properly, and then call for the proper (two-thirds required) vote.

[Rob Elsman]

If the bylaw is actually as clear as you make it sound, I would have thought an Appeal from the ruling of the chair would have been dilatory and out of order under the rule of RONR (10th ed.), p. 248, ll. 28-30.

To eliminate any lasting effect of the precedent that has been set, the assembly can repudiate its previous decision by adopting a motion to that effect with the same vote that is required to adopt a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, RONR (10th ed.), §35, pp. 293ff.

[Guest Jack]

It sounds like the bylaw in question is in the nature of a rule of order, and therefore could properly be suspended by the two-thirds vote required when a motion is made to suspend the rules. Suspending the rules lasts only for the duration of the meeting (thus, the bylaw wouldn't be changed, just suspended for that one meeting).

Assuming the meeting is over, if the same issue comes up again at the next meeting, the chair could help the member define the motion properly, and then call for the proper (two-thirds required) vote.

Thanks Trina!

[Guest Jack]

Thanks Trina!

[Trina]

Thanks Trina!

You're welcome; however, in view of Mr. Elsman's quite different view of the situation, you may want to stay tuned for other replies as to whether this type of rule (who can attend a meeting) is, or is not, in the nature of a rule of order. I still think it is, but perhaps it's not as clear-cut as I thought.

[Rob Elsman]

You're welcome; however, in view of Mr. Elsman's quite different view of the situation, you may want to stay tuned for other replies as to whether this type of rule (who can attend a meeting) is, or is not, in the nature of a rule of order. I still think it is, but perhaps it's not as clear-cut as I thought.

I gave no opinion in my earlier reply whether the bylaw in question is, or is not, a rule of order. My reply solely concerned the application of a motion to Appeal the ruling of the chair.

[David A Foulkes]

If it is a special rule, it would have required a 2/3 vote, not a mere 51%. If it isn't a rule of order, and thus an unsuspendable bylaw, it can't be suspended. So can't it (the appeal and subsequent vote) simply be ruled null and void? Is there in fact anything to rescind or amend?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Member A Makes motion to let non-members attend meetings.

Chair rules motion out of order because Bylaws specifically state "only members of the Board are to attend Board meetings."

Chair asked if Member A would like to pursue the motion as a consideration for change of the By Laws.

Member A declines to pursue By Law change, then appeals ruling of the Chair.

Member B seconds.

Chair stands and announces appeal to Chairs ruling.

Vote is taken with 51 per cent sustaining the appeal.

Snapshot so far:

• motion made, (viz., "That we let non-[board]-members attend [board] meetings."

• motion is ruled out of order by the chair.

• appeal is made. Appeal goes against ruling of the chair.

• net effect = the motion "To let non-members attend meetings", therefore, is in order.

(That was what the appeal was about. - "Is motion X in order, or not in order?")

Chair is uncertain what to do.

The chair should say:

"The ruling of the chair is overturned. The motion is in order. The question is, 'Shall non-members be allowed to attend this board meeting?' Are you ready for the question?"

The motion, in effect, has changed the By Law without due consideration.

No, it hasn't. The bylaws have not been amended.

What action could the chair have taken further to protect the By Law?

The chair is powerless in the face of an appeal which has gone against the ruling of the chair.

The body who is superior to the chair has made its decision.

It is up to the general membership, in its meeting, to un-do, correct, or otherwise modify, the board's new precedent.

[David A Foulkes]

If it is a special rule, it would have required a 2/3 vote, not a mere 51%. If it isn't a rule of order, and thus an unsuspendable bylaw, it can't be suspended. So can't it (the appeal and subsequent vote) simply be ruled null and void? Is there in fact anything to rescind or amend?

I see now (the fog clears, the light bulb lights... a-ha!) that the Appeal only requires the majority vote, but a motion to suspend the rules would have required 2/3. But --- a motion to "let non-members speak" would be (perhaps) implicitly a motion to Suspend The Rules (a more proper way to accomplish the deed) in this case, would it not? Phrasing it as simply to "let non-members speak" sort of subverts the parliamentary process of STR, a backdoor approach around the bylaw, yes? Then, if the chair had assisted the maker in formulating the motion to STR, and if the bylaw had been determined to be such a suspendable rule, then a 2/3 vote would have done it.

I question whether the means justifies the end, which is to say, the parliamentary process (motion, ruled out of order, chair's decision appealed, majority vote overturns) handled ostensibly in correct fashion still had as its result the suspension of the rules which requires a 2/3 vote had it been moved in that (STR) manner. And thus, is the result null and void, or does it need to be rescinded or amended?

[Trina]

... still had as its result the suspension of the rules which requires a 2/3 vote had it been moved in that (STR) manner. And thus, is the result null and void, or does it need to be rescinded or amended?

The particular action is over and done with; I think what some posters are talking about rescinding is, as described on p. 294 ll. 28-30:

motion to rescind or ASPA 'can also be applied to any precendent created as a result of a ruling of the chair or an appeal that has been taken from a ruling of the chair.'

Personally, I think the appeal was proper, since the original ruling of the chair was incorrect, IMO...

However, the precedent is subject to being rescinded.

[Trina]

If the bylaw is actually as clear as you make it sound, I would have thought an Appeal from the ruling of the chair would have been dilatory and out of order under the rule of RONR (10th ed.), p. 248, ll. 28-30.

....

I gave no opinion in my earlier reply whether the bylaw in question is, or is not, a rule of order. My reply solely concerned the application of a motion to Appeal the ruling of the chair.

Well, golly, isn't the stated opinion that the appeal was dilatory based on an underlying opinion about the correctness of the chair's evaluation of the bylaw in question?

[David A Foulkes]

Personally, I think the appeal was proper, since the original ruling of the chair was incorrect, IMO...

But handled properly, the member should have moved to Suspend The Rules (the one about only board members being allowed at Board meetings) and that would have required a 2/3 vote. The Chair's ruling being appealed allows (essentially) for the motion to Suspend The Rules to be adopted with a majority vote, and that seems to be an end-run around the 2/3 requirement. I would have thought an appeal in such case would have also required a 2/3 vote to reverse the chair's decision.

[Dan Honemann]

Personally, I think the appeal was proper, since the original ruling of the chair was incorrect, IMO...

Why?

[Trina]

But handled properly, the member should have moved to Suspend The Rules (the one about only board members being allowed at Board meetings) and that would have required a 2/3 vote. The Chair's ruling being appealed allows (essentially) for the motion to Suspend The Rules to be adopted with a majority vote, and that seems to be an end-run around the 2/3 requirement. I would have thought an appeal in such case would have also required a 2/3 vote to reverse the chair's decision.

As Mr. Goldsworthy pointed out (and I hope I am paraphrasing correctly) there really should have been two votes by the assembly -- 1) voting on the appeal (majority vote to overturn the chair's ruling); followed by 2) voting whether or not to suspend the bylaw in order to allow the non-members to attend (two-thirds vote required). You're right that skipping that second voting step would end up essentially suspending the bylaw with a majority vote, but that would be due to the assembly's (and chair's) confusion about what votes were required.

[Trina]

Why?

>> Chair rules motion out of order because By Laws specifically state "only members of the Board are to attend Board meetings." <<

If the bylaw is in the nature of a rule of order, it seems to me that the chair is wrong to find that a motion to allow non-members to attend is out of order. Perhaps the motion was improperly stated by the member, but the chair should have helped the member to restate it properly.

[Dan Honemann]

As Mr. Goldsworthy pointed out (and I hope I am paraphrasing correctly) there really should have been two votes by the assembly -- 1) voting on the appeal (majority vote to overturn the chair's ruling); followed by 2) voting whether or not to suspend the bylaw in order to allow the non-members to attend (two-thirds vote required). You're right that skipping that second voting step would end up essentially suspending the bylaw with a majority vote, but that would be due to the assembly's (and chair's) confusion about what votes were required.

What is all this about?

The original ruling of the chair was obviously correct.

[Trina]

What is all this about?

The original ruling of the chair was obviously correct.

OK, I'm leaving to think about this some more

Is the suspendability of the bylaw irrelevant to the correctness of the chair's ruling? If so, that's the salient point I'm missing...

[Dan Honemann]

>> Chair rules motion out of order because By Laws specifically state "only members of the Board are to attend Board meetings." <<

If the bylaw is in the nature of a rule of order, it seems to me that the chair is wrong to find that a motion to allow non-members to attend is out of order. Perhaps the motion was improperly stated by the member, but the chair should have helped the member to restate it properly.

This (the rule referred to) is not a rule in the nature of a rule of order, but even if it was, the motion that was made conflicting with it would obviously have been out of order.

[Dan Honemann]

Is the suspendability of the bylaw irrelevant to the correctness of the chair's ruling?

Yes. Suspendibility affects only the timeliness requirement, and in this instance the point of order was made in a timely fashion.

But all of this is irrelevant.

[Trina]

Oh well, my apologies to Jack, as I seem to have messed up on more than one issue in offering an answer to his question.

However, the thing that troubles me most is that I still don't see why this rule is not in the nature of a rule of order. After all, the rules (in RONR) can be suspended to allow non-members to enter debate, and even to make motions; why would an apparently lesser rule about attendance not be subject to suspension? And I think I remember quite a few regular posters (in other threads) saying that simple attendance by non-members can even be allowed by majority vote, without suspending the rules (this is in the absence of a specific bylaw, of course).

Is 'non-members have no right to attend meetings' (the default under RONR) a rule of order;

whereas

'only members are to attend meetings' (bylaws paraphrase from the original post) is not a rule of order?

[Guest Nancy N.]

Oh well, my apologies to Jack, as I seem to have messed up on more than one issue in offering an answer to his question.

However, the thing that troubles me most is that I still don't see why this rule is not in the nature of a rule of order. After all, the rules (in RONR) can be suspended to allow non-members to enter debate, and even to make motions; why would an apparently lesser rule about attendance not be subject to suspension? And I think I remember quite a few regular posters (in other threads) saying that simple attendance by non-members can even be allowed by majority vote, without suspending the rules (this is in the absence of a specific bylaw, of course).

Is 'non-members have no right to attend meetings' (the default under RONR) a rule of order;

whereas

'only members are to attend meetings' (bylaws paraphrase from the original post) is not a rule of order?

Don't bet the rent money on this. The question of who speaks at a meeting is an aspect of how the meeting is conducted ("transaction of business"), and it happens during the meeting. QED, it's a matter subject to rules of order. On the other hand, The question of who can attend does not deal with how (those sometimes administrative) things are done at the meeting, but rather - ADMINISTRATIVELY, rater than PROCEDURALLY -- what those administrative things are. So when it's in the bylaws, non-Board members just plain never get in the door. Period.

(And so -- without a bylaw involved -- the majority vote to allow now-members to attend deals with an administrative matter.

(And so, 'non-members have no right to attend meetings' is not a rule of order. And neither is "-only members are to attend meetings-'.)

[Dan Honemann]

Kudos to the night shift's stand-in.

By the way, even if this bylaw provision were erroneously considered to be a rule in the nature of a rule of order (which it isn't), it could not be suspended -- just as (for example) the rules prohibiting motions to close or limit debate in committees cannot be suspended.

[Trina]

Don't bet the rent money on this. The question of who speaks at a meeting is an aspect of how the meeting is conducted ("transaction of business"), and it happens during the meeting. QED, it's a matter subject to rules of order. On the other hand, The question of who can attend does not deal with how (those sometimes administrative) things are done at the meeting, but rather - ADMINISTRATIVELY, rater than PROCEDURALLY -- what those administrative things are. So when it's in the bylaws, non-Board members just plain never get in the door. Period.

(And so -- without a bylaw involved -- the majority vote to allow now-members to attend deals with an administrative matter.

(And so, 'non-members have no right to attend meetings' is not a rule of order. And neither is "-only members are to attend meetings-'.)

Thanks for the clarification! I had come to the same conclusion late last night, by way of the 'potted plant' analogy . Would a bylaw that prohibits potted plants in the meeting room be in the nature of a rule of order? Clearly, no. Do non-members, by their mere presence in the meeting room, affect the conduct of business during the meeting any more than so many potted plants? No. QED. And that, incidentally, finally clears the fog for me as to why allowing the attendance of non-members takes only majority vote (under the rules in RONR).

Off now to search for a good 'foot-in-mouth' emoticon, as I need one now, and am sure to need it again from time to time in the future.

[David A Foulkes]

Thanks for the clarification! I had come to the same conclusion late last night, by way of the 'potted plant' analogy . Would a bylaw that prohibits potted plants in the meeting room be in the nature of a rule of order? Clearly, no. Do non-members, by their mere presence in the meeting room, affect the conduct of business during the meeting any more than so many potted plants? No. QED. And that, incidentally, finally clears the fog for me as to why allowing the attendance of non-members takes only majority vote (under the rules in RONR).

Off now to search for a good 'foot-in-mouth' emoticon, as I need one now, and am sure to need it again from time to time in the future.