PROOF 2.4
WVDP Bylaw Violation

PROOF: August Meeting Violated Notice Requirements and Used Biased Presiding Officer

Violation: The August 17, 2021 meeting violated WVDP Bylaws Article XI by mislabeling bylaws as 'procedural rules' to avoid the 30-day notice requirement. The meeting also violated Robert's Rules by using a presiding officer with undisclosed professional ties to the parliamentarian. The Board of Appeals invalidated the meeting due to these procedural violations.
Stakes: Members were denied their right to review fundamental governance changes. The meeting used a presiding officer with undisclosed conflicts. The Board of Appeals invalidated the proceedings.
Evidence Strength:
10 facts, 5 axioms

The Axioms (The Rules)

1

WVDP Bylaws require 30 days written notice for amendments. Primary Source

WVDP Bylaws, Article XI, Section A

2

Bylaws define organizational structure and continuing governance. Primary Source

RONR 12th ed., § 2:8

3

Rules of order govern single meetings; bylaws establish ongoing authority. Primary Source

RONR 12th ed., § 2:14

4

Presiding officers must maintain strict impartiality. Primary Source

Robert's Rules of Order, 12th ed., § 47:7

5

Persons in positions of trust must disclose potential conflicts. Primary Source

Robert's Rules of Order, 12th ed., § 45:3

Rule Summary

Rules granting authority between meetings are bylaws requiring 30-day notice, regardless of their label. A presiding officer must be neutral and disclose any relationships that could affect impartiality.

The Offenses (What Happened)

Documents titled 'DRAFT Procedural Rules' were circulated less than 24 hours before the August 17, 2021 meeting.

Evidence: August 17 Meeting Transcript.txt Official Record

Rule 13 granted Co-Chairs 'all the authority of the Affirmative Action Committee... between meetings.'

Evidence: DRAFT Procedural Rules for august meeting.pdf Official Record

Rule 14 established subcommittee appointment and removal procedures.

Evidence: DRAFT Procedural Rules for august meeting.pdf Official Record

A member asked during the meeting: 'Why weren't they sent earlier so that we had an opportunity to read them?'

Evidence: August 17 Meeting Transcript.txt Official Record

Another member stated: 'it's not a procedural rule for handling this meeting.'

Evidence: August 17 Meeting Transcript.txt Official Record

Larry Taylor was invited to preside over the meeting where these rules were adopted.

Evidence: AAC Meeting Minutes Official Record

Larry Taylor served as a parliamentarian trainer with the Professional Development Program.

Evidence: PDPR Training Materials Official Record

Taylor and Selina Vickers were professional colleagues.

Evidence: Email Correspondence between S. Vickers and L. Taylor Documentary

Taylor's professional relationship with Parliamentarian Vickers was not disclosed to the committee.

Evidence: AAC Meeting Minutes Official Record

The Board of Appeals ruled the August meeting invalid, citing improper procedures.

Evidence: WVDP Board of Appeals Resolution Official Record

The Logical Reasoning

  1. Documents titled 'DRAFT Procedural Rules' were circulated less than 24 hours before the meeting.
  2. These documents contained Rules 13 and 14.
  3. Rule 13 granted Co-Chairs continuing authority between meetings.
  4. Rule 14 established subcommittee governance structures.
  5. By definition, rules granting continuing authority are bylaws, not procedural rules.
  6. WVDP bylaws require 30 days notice for amendments.
  7. The mislabeling as 'procedural' avoided this notice requirement.
  8. Members objected to the lack of notice during the meeting.
  9. An external officer, Larry Taylor, presided over the meeting.
  10. Taylor had undisclosed professional ties to Parliamentarian Vickers.
  11. Robert's Rules require presiding officers to disclose potential conflicts.
  12. Taylor's relationship was not disclosed to the committee.
  13. The Board of Appeals ruled the meeting invalid due to improper procedures.
  14. The August meeting violated multiple procedural requirements through mislabeled bylaws and an undisclosed conflict of interest.

Was this page helpful?

Your feedback helps us keep every proof and method page useful.