proposed changes to constitution

[Guest Grant Pozernick]

I am the president of a organization which has a written constitution. We are allowed to make changes to our constitution once a year at our AGM. I had asked our membership for any proposed changes that they would like to see. A proposed change came in that was in the words of our Vice-President "self-serving, and not in the best interests of our membership". I was going to have our executive review this proposal and determine if it has merit before we vote on it at the AGM. Does the executive have the right to "censor" the proposed changes, or do all proposed changes, no matter how absurd have to go to the general membership for voting? Does the executive not have the power to protect the membership against such self serving individuals? What is to stop them from stacking the AGM with their friends and passing the proposed change?

Thank you,

Grant

[George Mervosh]

I am the president of a organization which has a written constitution. We are allowed to make changes to our constitution once a year at our AGM. I had asked our membership for any proposed changes that they would like to see. A proposed change came in that was in the words of our Vice-President "self-serving, and not in the best interests of our membership". I was going to have our executive review this proposal and determine if it has merit before we vote on it at the AGM. Does the executive have the right to "censor" the proposed changes, or do all proposed changes, no matter how absurd have to go to the general membership for voting? Does the executive not have the power to protect the membership against such self serving individuals? What is to stop them from stacking the AGM with their friends and passing the proposed change?Thank you,

Grant

1) Absolutely Not.

2) Absolutely Not.

3) Nothing.

There are no page citations since nothing in Robert's Rules confers that kind of authority on a subordinate body.

[Josh Martin]

Does the executive have the right to "censor" the proposed changes, or do all proposed changes, no matter how absurd have to go to the general membership for voting?

All proposed changes must go to the membership, unless your Constitution gives the board the authority to remove proposals from consideration.

Does the executive not have the power to protect the membership against such self serving individuals?

No, unless the Constitution grants them this authority.

What is to stop them from stacking the AGM with their friends and passing the proposed change?

Have people who are opposed to the change get their supporters to show up as well.

[Guest Grant Pozernick]

Our constitution has this provision: "a) The Executive Committee shall be empowered to authorize spending of the organization’s funds, to represent the organization, to create temporary committees, to appoint committee chairs, and to act in the interest of the organization."

Does this not fall under acting in the interest of the organization?

Thank you,

Grant

[hmtcastle]

Does this not fall under acting in the interest of the organization?

No.

[Gary Novosielski]

Our constitution has this provision: "a) The Executive Committee shall be empowered to authorize spending of the organization’s funds, to represent the organization, to create temporary committees, to appoint committee chairs, and to act in the interest of the organization."

Does this not fall under acting in the interest of the organization?

Thank you,

Grant

The general membership is presumed to be more capable of assessing what the best interests of the organization are, primarily because they are the organization.

[Josh Martin]

Our constitution has this provision: "a) The Executive Committee shall be empowered to authorize spending of the organization’s funds, to represent the organization, to create temporary committees, to appoint committee chairs, and to act in the interest of the organization."

Does this not fall under acting in the interest of the organization?

A general clause such as "to act in the interest of the organization" is not, in my opinion, sufficient to allow the Executive Committee to interfere with the general membership's authority to amend the Bylaws. As noted, it is up to the general membership to determine whether the amendment is in the best interests of the organization.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I am the president of a organization which has a written constitution.

We are allowed to make changes to our constitution once a year at our AGM.

I had asked our membership for any proposed changes that they would like to see.

So far, so good.

A proposed change came in that was in the words of our Vice-President "self-serving, and not in the best interests of our membership".

Okay.

That is called, "opinion."

A single individual, like a vice president, is free to have an opinion.

That opinion does not imply that the opinion is correct. - It only implies an pre-conceived notion or attitude or bias.

I was going to have our executive [committee] review this proposal and determine if it has merit before we vote on it at the AGM.

Okay.

I see nothing wrong with a review of like-minded fellows caucusing over a new idea.

Q. Does the executive [committee] have the right to "censor" the proposed changes, or do all proposed changes, no matter how absurd have to go to the general membership for voting?

The executive, by default, is powerless.

No executive censors anything, by default.

Now, with that said, if you have a constitution or a set of bylaws which says otherwise, then acknowledge, and obey, your documents of authority.

If your constitution has a METHOD OF AMENDMENT, then follow that method!

If the METHOD OF AMENDMENT makes no mention of the "executive committee" in the loop, then your "executive committee" has no place in the flow.

Q. Does the executive not have the power to protect the membership against such self serving individuals?

So far, the only "self-serving" individual is the VICE PRESIDENT, who has a BIAS against an honest proposal which only came forth due to the prompting of the PRESIDENT for new proposals from the MEMBERSHIP.

So, no, don't punish your short-sighted VICE PRESIDENT for having a pre-conceived notion that the new proposal is evil or anti-organizational.

You don't need to guard the membership against PROPOSALS.

PROPOSALS do nothing.

PROPOSALS are ideas.

And ideas, not yet adopted, cause no harm to anyone.

Q. What is to stop them from stacking the AGM with their friends and passing the proposed change?

Nothing!

What is the problem? - That is the very idea of BUILDING MEMBERSHIP - i.e., ask the membership to talk to their friends and neighbors about the wonderful organization they are part of, and get those friends and neighbors to JOIN THE CLUB.

You should thank the membership for getting the word on on the street that your organization exists, and is worth joining.

It is EVERYBODY'S JOB to recruit new members into their organization.

Personal testimony is a very persuasive tool.

Any membership chairman will tell you that he cannot do recruitment along, but needs the help of every member to spread the word, and get their friends and neighbors aware of the good work of the organization, and thus do grass roots building of new future leaders of the organization.

Our constitution has this provision:

"a) The Executive Committee shall be empowered

to authorize spending of the organization’s funds,

to represent the organization, to create temporary committees,

to appoint committee chairs, and

to act in the interest of the organization."

Review:

"Executive Committee" has the following powers:

1. spending

2. representation, and create committees.

3. appoint chairmen of #2 committees.

4. act in the interest of the organization.

Q. Does this not fall under acting in the interest of the organization?

Come again?

Does _what_ fall under "acting in the interest of the organization?

• "... stacking the AGM with their friends ..."?

• "[President] had asked our membership for any proposed changes that they would like to see"?

• "A proposed change came in ..."?

So far, nothing bad has happened. Who is protecting whom, from what?

Surely, you are not implying the PROPOSALS are things which the general membership is to be protected from?

That would be very patronizing. That would be insulting to the intelligence of the membership.

That would be an inferior body blocking new ideas from reaching the ears/eyes of the superior body.

And that doesn't make sense.

[Guest Grant Pozernick]

This is what our constitution states:

Article 11: Amendments to Constitution:

The D.R.A.M. constitution shall be amended by a majority vote of the total membership at a general meeting.

Proposals for amendments shall only be made by existing members.

Proposals for amendments shall be submitted in writing to the Executive Committee twenty calendar days before the general meeting.

Constitutional changes can only be done once annually and are to be recorded in this document. (Item added Nov. 19, 2009)

Our Vice President is spot on by what he is saying and many of the other executives are thinking the exact same thing. The person who is proposing the change is also on the executive and using his position for personal gain.

I just want to protect the integrity of our organization.

What are consequences if I do not follow Roberts Rules?

Thank you,

Grant

[hmtcastle]

What are consequences if I do not follow Roberts Rules?

If you've adopted RONR as your parliamentary authority, its rules are as binding as your bylaws.

If the proposed amendment is as flawed as you claim, it should be easy to defeat it. The board will play no role at the annual meeting and, in fact, the board, as a board, won't even be present. Any board members who are present will enjoy no special status. At the AGM, they're just members with one vote each. It's called democracy.

If it's any consolation, a majority of the entire membership is a fairly high threshold to cross.

[Josh Martin]

This is what our constitution states:

Article 11: Amendments to Constitution:

The D.R.A.M. constitution shall be amended by a majority vote of the total membership at a general meeting.

Proposals for amendments shall only be made by existing members.

Proposals for amendments shall be submitted in writing to the Executive Committee twenty calendar days before the general meeting.

Constitutional changes can only be done once annually and are to be recorded in this document. (Item added Nov. 19, 2009)

Our Vice President is spot on by what he is saying and many of the other executives are thinking the exact same thing. The person who is proposing the change is also on the executive and using his position for personal gain.

I just want to protect the integrity of our organization.

What are consequences if I do not follow Roberts Rules?

There is nothing in this clause which suggests that the Executive Committee has the power to reject an amendment. Additionally, if your constitution requires a vote of a majority of the entire membership, I think your earlier concerns of "stacking the deck" are unfounded. For any motion to be adopted, a majority of the entire membership must vote in favor of it. I think if any amendment achieves this high threshold, it's clear that the membership feels the amendment is in the best interests of the organization, the opinions of the officers notwithstanding.

If the officers are so concerned about this amendment, they should speak against it at the annual meeting, in their capacity as members of the organization. Express these concerns to the membership, and they will make the final decision.

Also, it's your Constitution you would be violating, not just Robert's Rules. The consequences for that could be severe. See FAQ #20, elsewhere on this site, for where we direct posters who ask about that sort of thing.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

This is what our constitution states:

Article 11: Amendments to Constitution:

The D.R.A.M. constitution shall be amended by a majority vote of the total membership at a general meeting.

Proposals for amendments shall only be made by existing members.

Proposals for amendments shall be submitted in writing to the Executive Committee twenty calendar days before the general meeting.

Constitutional changes can only be done once annually and are to be recorded in this document. (Item added Nov. 19, 2009)

Our Vice President is spot on by what he is saying and many of the other executives are thinking the exact same thing.

The person who is proposing the change is also on the executive and using his position for personal gain.

I just want to protect the integrity of our organization.

Q. What are consequences if I do not follow Roberts Rules?

The D.R.A.M. constitution shall be amended by a majority vote of the total membership at a general meeting.

Okay.

Then, "game over."

At the general meeting, any member can make a motion to amend the constitution, as long as a copy of the motion has been forwarded in 20 days to your Executive Committee.

It does not matter if you eat the incoming mail.

The Executive Committee has no say in the matter.

You can "violate" Robert's Rules of Order all you want. - It does not matter. - All the member needs to do is "follow the constitution."

I mean, you aren't going to cancel the annual meeting. And you aren't going to physical bar the member from the meeting room.

[Guest Grant Pozernick]

Thank you very much for the responses. It's just a little frustrating to know that anyone can make a proposal for change, no matter how selfish, without it going through a scrutinizing review. I don't suppose it makes any difference if we have in our constitution a provision to prevent personal gain and conflict of interest? I know - I'm grasping at straws!!

I suppose for the sake of democracy, we should allow the proposal to be heard by the membership at the AGM. I come from the world of private business where I have full autonomy to make decisions which is for the best of the company.

Thank you,

Grant

[Kim Goldsworthy]

... I'm grasping at straws ...

... for the sake of democracy ...

What is the problem?

Just VOTE DOWN the proposal.

They have an acronym for this: G.O.T.V. ("Get Out The Vote".)

A main motion is debatable. So debate against it.

You are free to talk to members. Phone them or write them with your concerns.

Lobby. Caucus.

Work democracy the old fashioned way.

If the MAJORITY disagree with you, then at least the MAJORITY will have prevailed.

No individual will have had any control at any time.

Else, why not make your own proposal: Put 100% control of the organization into the hands of 2-3 people. Get the majority out of the loop. That way, you and the vice president can run the whole organization, and not be pestered by things like a constitution, like a majority vote.

[hmtcastle]

I suppose for the sake of democracy, we should allow the proposal to be heard by the membership at the AGM.

It's not a question of "allowing" the membership to exercise their rights. If anything, the membership is "allowing" you to serve as president. Think George Washington, not Kim Jong Il.

[Trina]

Thank you very much for the responses. It's just a little frustrating to know that anyone can make a proposal for change, no matter how selfish, without it going through a scrutinizing review

....

The default situation in RONR regarding proposed amendments to the bylaws is very open -- any member, with a second, can propose an amendment. Moreover, 'if notice is to be given by mail, the society is responsible for paying the cost of sending such notice, not the member proposing the amendment.' (RONR p. 578 ll. 5-7)

I thought that sentence was an eye-opener when I first read it. Your rules are somewhat more restrictive, of course, with the requirement for written notice 20 days in advance to the executive committee. However, the baseline you're starting from (the rules in RONR regarding amendments) may be instructive, and perhaps surprising, to you. No 'scrutinizing review' process whatsoever ... other than getting at least one other member to agree that the proposal has sufficient merit to second it.

[Josh Martin]

It's just a little frustrating to know that anyone can make a proposal for change, no matter how selfish, without it going through a scrutinizing review.

Well, if you don't like it, amend your Bylaws to change it. Many organizations establish a Bylaws Committee to vet such proposals, and the amount of authority given to such a committee varies greatly from organization to organization. It is generally unwise for the board to perform this function.

I don't suppose it makes any difference if we have in our constitution a provision to prevent personal gain and conflict of interest?

Probably not.

I suppose for the sake of democracy, we should allow the proposal to be heard by the membership at the AGM.

You have no choice in the matter. As has already been noted, the board has no authority to block proposals from being heard by the general membership, unless the Bylaws grant this authority.

I come from the world of private business where I have full autonomy to make decisions which is for the best of the company.

Well, that does at least help me understand where you are coming from. Deliberative assemblies are (generally) run in the exact opposite way of private corporations - they are run from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. This can take some getting used to.

[Tim Wynn]

Thank you very much for the responses. It's just a little frustrating to know that anyone can make a proposal for change, no matter how selfish, without it going through a scrutinizing review. I don't suppose it makes any difference if we have in our constitution a provision to prevent personal gain and conflict of interest? I know - I'm grasping at straws!!

I suppose for the sake of democracy, we should allow the proposal to be heard by the membership at the AGM. I come from the world of private business where I have full autonomy to make decisions which is for the best of the company.

Thank you,

Grant

It's unfortunate that you hold the members of your organization in such contempt that you've become certain that they cannot decide for themselves what is best for the organization. Perhaps, you're afraid that what they decide will not align with what you have already decided for them.

[David A Foulkes]

It's unfortunate that you hold the members of your organization in such contempt that you've become certain that they cannot decide for themselves what is best for the organization. Perhaps, you're afraid that what they decide will not align with what you have already decided for them.

I remember my mommy often telling me, as a young lad bent on straying, "I know what's best for you and you will not _______________________."

Not sure why I recall that now...... hmmm........