Guest Nancy N. Posted December 31, 2012 at 10:55 AM Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 at 10:55 AM But Mr. Foulkes would not be the Gary Novosielski until he has been approved (p. 355).c.t. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 31, 2012 at 11:27 AM Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 at 11:27 AM That's right. Just to be clear, I thought it was funny. (But I also think it makes a serious point.)It does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted December 31, 2012 at 05:15 PM Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 at 05:15 PM It does?As I understand it, it makes the point that, by accepting his resignation from office, the society ought to be able to remove any expectation that Gary Novosielski will be doing anything as a member of the board, just as it could, by accepting her resignation from office, remove any expectation that another ex-officio member of the board, such as the treasurer, will be doing anything as a member of the board.The only question is what office is being resigned from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 31, 2012 at 05:28 PM Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 at 05:28 PM As I understand it, it makes the point that, by accepting his resignation from office, the society ought to be able to remove any expectation that Gary Novosielski will be doing anything as a member of the board, just as it could, by accepting her resignation from office, remove any expectation that another ex-officio member of the board, such as the treasurer, will be doing anything as a member of the board.The only question is what office is being resigned from. The assembly can accept the treasurer's resignation from the office of treasurer, in which event he will no longer be the treasurer. Gary will still be Gary, no matter what he or the assembly says or does, and the only way to remove him from the board will be to amend the bylaws (unless, of course, he dies). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted December 31, 2012 at 05:46 PM Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 at 05:46 PM (unless, of course, he dies).I'm not sure what you're suggesting is legal, but I'll make some calls and see it it's doable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted December 31, 2012 at 05:48 PM Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 at 05:48 PM I'm not sure what you're suggesting is legal, but I'll make some calls and see it it's doable. I don't think there's any rule in RONR that prohibits it. But, as you know, we don't "do" legal here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted December 31, 2012 at 06:27 PM Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 at 06:27 PM The way I see it, he can be excused from the duties associated with membership on the board. Then, as a member who does not have the obligation to participate, he should not affect the quorum in any way. If he wants to pop in and exercise his rights . . . well, that's what rights are for, and he'll be able to do that until the bylaws are changed or until the inevitable flatline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted December 31, 2012 at 08:19 PM Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 at 08:19 PM The assembly can accept the treasurer's resignation from the office of treasurer, in which event he will no longer be the treasurer. Gary will still be Gary, no matter what he or the assembly says or does, and the only way to remove him from the board will be to amend the bylaws (unless, of course, he dies).I'm trying to remain neutral in this discussion, but I took Gary's comment "if I offer my resignation, why can't they accept it, creating a vacancy in the office of Gary Novosielski?" to mean, Why can't he resign from the office of "ex-officio member of the board by virtue of being Gary Novosielski"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 31, 2012 at 08:50 PM Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 at 08:50 PM I'm trying to remain neutral in this discussion, but I took Gary's comment "if I offer my resignation, why can't they accept it, creating a vacancy in the office of Gary Novosielski?" to mean, Why can't he resign from the office of "ex-officio member of the board by virtue of being Gary Novosielski"?Gary can do, or not do, whatever he wants. The point is that the society's assembly cannot remove him from the board, or effectively accept his resignation and thus prevent him from future participation, because its bylaws prevent it from doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted December 31, 2012 at 08:58 PM Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 at 08:58 PM I'm trying to remain neutral in this discussion . . .Is that a difficult thing to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted December 31, 2012 at 10:30 PM Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 at 10:30 PM Is that a difficult thing to do?I dunno. Did I succeed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted December 31, 2012 at 10:52 PM Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 at 10:52 PM I dunno. Did I succeed? Partially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 1, 2013 at 03:57 AM Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 at 03:57 AM This is precisely my point; it is really a question of whether or not the bylaws define the IPP as an office or not. You can't resign being Gary Novosielski, but if your organization coincidentally had an office called Gary Novosielski, then there is prima facie no reason that David A Foulkes couldn't be the Gary Novosielski.Well, in my organization, IPP is more clearly an office, and defined as a member of the board, but for a fixed term of one year. The President has a term of three years. Once the year is up, the past president is still a past president, but has vacated the office of Immediate Past President, which now has no occupant and presumably does not count toward a quorum. It's not so much a vacancy in the office at that point so much as an office which sprang into being at the last election and then vanished a year later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 1, 2013 at 02:20 PM Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 at 02:20 PM The IPP could refuse to continue functioning in that office, while still holding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 1, 2013 at 03:37 PM Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 at 03:37 PM Partially. C'mon, that's funny: "partially" neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 1, 2013 at 04:57 PM Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 at 04:57 PM My advice would be to maintain a largely pro-Good, anti-Evil position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sMargaret Posted January 1, 2013 at 05:38 PM Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 at 05:38 PM My advice would be to maintain a largely pro-Good, anti-Evil position.My advice would be not to have the position of "Immediate Past President" in the bylaws, without putting more thought into avoiding this type of conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 2, 2013 at 05:36 PM Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 05:36 PM My advice would be not to have the position of "Immediate Past President" in the bylaws, without putting more thought into avoiding this type of conversation.Well, I didn't write the bylaws, I just ran for election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.