Violation of By-Laws & Point of Order

[Guest Pam Duffy]

Our Chair has recently taken to holding on-line Board meetings via email. As one of the Board members is poor about checking emails, the Chair telephonically contacted this individual and presumably got their verbal okay on an issue. Only the Chair and this particular Board member were privy to that conversation. The Chair interpreted this individual's acceptance as a second to his proposal on the issue and then turned around and declared his proposal a motion with the called Board member's acceptance as a second to his motion. The Chair's actions were challenged by way of a point of order as our by-laws do not authorize or discuss telephone conferencing. The Chair has since determined the point of order was not warranted.

I would like to add that our organization has adopted Robert's noting it shall govern the organization in all matters of procedure.

It would appear that clearly the by-laws have been violated.

How should this situation be handled?

What is the proper way for a point of order to be addressed?

Can a challenge be offered to the Chair's determination that the point of order is not well taken?

When the by-laws are consistently violated and the Chair refuses to acknowledge the fact, how should that be handled?

Thank you.

[Tim Wynn]

Our Chair has recently taken to holding on-line Board meetings via email.

Holding meetings via e-mail is prohibited, unless specifically authorized in your bylaws. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 2, footnote.

As one of the Board members is poor about checking emails, the Chair telephonically contacted this individual and presumably got their verbal okay on an issue. Only the Chair and this particular Board member were privy to that conversation. The Chair interpreted this individual's acceptance as a second to his proposal on the issue and then turned around and declared his proposal a motion with the called Board member's acceptance as a second to his motion.

A motion is made and seconded in a meeting. However, seconds are not required in small boards. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 470-471.

Also, if nobody likes the motion, it won't pass, regardless of seconding.

The Chair's actions were challenged by way of a point of order as our by-laws do not authorize or discuss telephone conferencing. The Chair has since determined the point of order was not warranted.

I can't say if the point of order should have been well taken or not, as I don't know what it was or enough about the parliamentary situation at the time.

It would appear that clearly the by-laws have been violated.

This is for the assembly to decide.

How should this situation be handled?

As far as I can gather, this is about a motion being introduced without a second. So, ultimately, the group can just vote the motion down, since its clear that nobody wants to see it come before the assembly (if you discover that a second isn't required). You could also Object to the Consideration of the Question, if it's an original main motion. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 258.

What is the proper way for a point of order to be addressed?

The chair should rule it "well taken" or "not well taken." See RONR(10th ed.), section 23.

Can a challenge be offered to the Chair's determination that the point of order is not well taken?

Yes, see RONR(10th ed.), section 24. A member can Appeal from the decision of the chair. It requires a second (oh, here we go again), and a majority to overturn the chair's ruling.

When the by-laws are consistently violated and the Chair refuses to acknowledge the fact, how should that be handled?

See FAQ# 20.

[Trina]

Our Chair has recently taken to holding on-line Board meetings via email. As one of the Board members is poor about checking emails, the Chair telephonically contacted this individual and presumably got their verbal okay on an issue. Only the Chair and this particular Board member were privy to that conversation. The Chair interpreted this individual's acceptance as a second to his proposal on the issue and then turned around and declared his proposal a motion with the called Board member's acceptance as a second to his motion.

Was the motion introduced at an in-person meeting, or was this a continuation of the Chair's effort to conduct a meeting via e-mail? Are e-mail meetings specifically allowed by your bylaws? See Mr. Wynn's comment on this point.

The Chair's actions were challenged by way of a point of order as our by-laws do not authorize or discuss telephone conferencing.

Was the point of order raised at a meeting (the only time a point of order can validly be raised)? What exactly was the point of order about?

The Chair has since determined the point of order was not warranted.

...

When did the Chair make this determination? Was it at a meeting (the only time a chair can validly make such rulings)? The use of the word 'since' sounds like it happened some indefinite time later, which makes me suspicious about the circumstances.

[Gary Novosielski]

Can a challenge be offered to the Chair's determination that the point of order is not well taken?

Thank you.

From RONRIB:

The group as a whole, not the chair, is the final authority in judging whether the rules have been violated. If you disagree with a ruling by the chair, you may Appeal it to the group as a whole. Without waiting to be recognized, you stand and say, "I appeal from the decision of the chair." An appeal requires a second.

An appeal may generally be debated by the members, but unlike debate on other motions, each member may speak only once. The chair may speak in debate twice, the first time in preference over other members and the second time to close debate.

...

An Appeal is stated and put to a vote as "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" It requires a majority vote in the negative to overturn the chair's ruling. A tie sustains the decision of the chair, and loses the appeal.

[RONR (10^th ed.), p. 247-52.]

[Guest Pam Duffy]

Our Chair has recently taken to holding on-line Board meetings via email. As one of the Board members is poor about checking emails, the Chair telephonically contacted this individual and presumably got their verbal okay on an issue. Only the Chair and this particular Board member were privy to that conversation. The Chair interpreted this individual's acceptance as a second to his proposal on the issue and then turned around and declared his proposal a motion with the called Board member's acceptance as a second to his motion. The Chair's actions were challenged by way of a point of order as our by-laws do not authorize or discuss telephone conferencing. The Chair has since determined the point of order was not warranted.

I would like to add that our organization has adopted Robert's noting it shall govern the organization in all matters of procedure.

It would appear that clearly the by-laws have been violated.

How should this situation be handled?

What is the proper way for a point of order to be addressed?

Can a challenge be offered to the Chair's determination that the point of order is not well taken?

When the by-laws are consistently violated and the Chair refuses to acknowledge the fact, how should that be handled?

Thank you.

[Guest Pam Duffy]

There was no formal second made to the Chair's motion. When the Chair telephonically contacted the one Board member and indicated what his proposal was, the Chair said that Board member accepted his proposal. The Chair also interpreted the member's acceptance as a second to his motion without that Board member actually stating the motion was seconded.

[Gary Novosielski]

There was no formal second made to the Chair's motion. When the Chair telephonically contacted the one Board member and indicated what his proposal was, the Chair said that Board member accepted his proposal. The Chair also interpreted the member's acceptance as a second to his motion without that Board member actually stating the motion was seconded.

It makes no difference what happened on the phone. The phone call was not a meeting.

If you're not in a meeting, you can't make motions, second them, discuss them, amend them, commit them, postpone them, vote on them, or anything. The other thing you can't do is raise a Point of Order, which you really need to do a lot of.

Outside of the meeting context, a presiding officer has no power to do anything. Your chair clearly has no idea what proper procedure is, and is simply running around making up procedure as he goes along.

Somebody needs to step on his leash.

[Josh Martin]

How should this situation be handled?

What is the proper way for a point of order to be addressed?

At the next in-person meeting of the board, raise a Point of Order that conducting business by e-mail (or by phone) is prohibited, since there is no authorization in the Bylaws, and that all business conducted by e-mail (or by phone) is null and void. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 2, footnote; pg. 408, line 31 - pg. 409, line 4; pg. 469, lines 29-34)

Can a challenge be offered to the Chair's determination that the point of order is not well taken?

Yes, the ruling of the chair may be appealed. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 247, lines 19-25)

When the by-laws are consistently violated and the Chair refuses to acknowledge the fact, how should that be handled?

See Official Interpretation 2006-2, FAQ #20, and RONR, 10th ed., pg. 642, lines 11-19 for a few ideas.