Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Board passes motion inconsistent with mission statement


Guest Sandy Green

Recommended Posts

At a board recent board meeting a member suggested that our Board recommend candidates for a election to a larger board. With much discussion the motion was passed with 10 affirming votes and 11 abstentions. After the meeting, the Board President after reviewing our organizations mission statement found the motion to be not in alignment with said statement. Can the President at this point refuse to carry out the motion that was passed using Roberts Rules as it is not in line with the mission of the group or does she have to carry out said motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can the President at this point refuse to carry out the motion that was passed using Roberts Rules as it is not in line with the mission of the group or does she have to carry out said motion.

If the motion is clearly in violation of the bylaws, I'd say that the president is obligated to not carry out the actions authorized. She should probably notify all the board members that she's doing so (or not doing so) and, if possible, call a special meeting to declare the adopted motion null and void.

But note that a mission statement can often be interpreted broadly.

And stay tuned for other opinions on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the motion is clearly in violation of the bylaws, I'd say that the president is obligated to not carry out the actions authorized. She should probably notify all the board members that she's doing so (or not doing so) and, if possible, call a special meeting to declare the adopted motion null and void.

But note that a mission statement can often be interpreted broadly.

And stay tuned for other opinions on this one.

Mr. Mt. See p. 333.

The motion needs to be carried out. A motion that is outside of the scope of the organization can be considered by a 2/3 vote, assuming someone made a point of order in the first place at that the time the motion was made.

It's far too late now to worry about it, procedurally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Mt. See p. 333.

The motion needs to be carried out. A motion that is outside of the scope of the organization can be considered by a 2/3 vote, assuming someone made a point of order in the first place at that the time the motion was made.

It's far too late now to worry about it, procedurally.

Mr. Mervosh, would that still be your opinion if the motion was not merely outside the scope of the organization's purpose, but directly contradictory with it? It would seem to me that in an organization advocating prohibition of alcohol, for instance, there would be a difference between a motion to make a donation to the local humane society and a motion to have a cash bar at the annual banquet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At a board recent board meeting a member suggested that our Board recommend candidates for a election to a larger board.

This is the motion, then, right?

E.g., "I move that We, the Little Board, recommend Mrs. Peacock, Mrs. White, and Miss Scarlet, to a larger CLUE playing board, with larger squares to accommodate their collective girth."

With much discussion the motion was passed with 10 affirming votes and 11 abstentions.

Okay.

The numbers themselves are irrelevant, but it provides a continuing narrative. - The motion appears to have passed, 10-0, with some members abstaining.

After the meeting, the Board President after reviewing our organizations mission statement found the motion to be not in alignment with said statement.

Whatever he found after the meeting cannot be acted upon until a new meeting. Until overturned or amended, the adopted is the official policy or statement of the organization.

Q. Can the President, at this point, refuse to carry out the motion that was passed using Roberts Rules, as it is not in line with the mission of the group or does she have to carry out said motion?

No. That's not how it works.

Presidents don't have a rule in RONR implying, "By the way, Mr. Prezz, if you ever find that an adopted motion which conflicts with a mission statement, then you don't have to obey the motion."

However, in a meeting, once the members realize that the adopted motion conflicts with the mission statement, and once the members acknowledge this fact, inside a proper meeting, and once the members apply that the Robertian principle that where there is a conflict between adopted motions, the earlier motion (here, the mission statement) is the rule to be enforced, and the later motion (here, the recommendation of candidates) yields, and becomes a nullity, via the inevitable Point of Order and maybe Appeal From the Decision of the Chair.

So, even if the President is wise enough to see the conflict, nothing in RONR grants the President the power to delay or hinder execution of the later motion.

The president might be praised as wise, good, kind, and visionary, by noticing the conflict, and by restraining himself from executing the later motion, and be given a commendation and a medal for his bravery and courage.

But, again, under RONR, no president has that option.

The president is at risk, and is quite on his own, whenever he hinders or delays an official act or policy or rule, of the organization. - He risks suspension, expulsion, removal from office, if he fails to fulfill his duty.

Thus the question:

"Is the president fulfilling a higher ethical duty to obey the proper rule, the enforceable rule, and ignoring the other later motion which will be likely recognized as conflicting and unenforceble?"

Or, "Is the president derelict in his duty for sloughing off a motion which is still official and still enforceable (for a while)?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Mervosh, would that still be your opinion if the motion was not merely outside the scope of the organization's purpose, but directly contradictory with it? It would seem to me that in an organization advocating prohibition of alcohol, for instance, there would be a difference between a motion to make a donation to the local humane society and a motion to have a cash bar at the annual banquet.

Yes.

RONR establishes no parameters on how far outside of the object it is.

And don't call me Mr. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line is, the rules in RONR don't set the boundaries you wish it did.

That's when it's time to put the book down (!) and use what's between the ears.

I still think that, given the original scenario, the prudent thing for the president to do is hit the "Pause" button, notify the members that the adopted motion flies in the face of the recently-discovered (?) mission statement, and give them a chance to re-think the recommendation before the horse is out of the barn for good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...