Chairman of the Board doesn't like rules

[Guest Britni S]

The organization that I'm a part of has a Chairman of the Board who doesn't like to follow our Constitution, Bylaws, Rules and Regs, OR Robert's Rules. On multiple occasions this person has been told that they are indeed in the wrong and have not been following proper procedure and they have completely ignored me, made rude comments. Let's say he's just fallen short of having me removed as a member because I won't let the matter go. His actions of ignoring proper procedure have resulted in 2 members being voted out of their positions incorrectly. One being the former Chairman of the Board who was not present at the general membership meeting to defend himself or his actions that were called into question. The second being the former Chief, who at the same meeting had a vote of no confidence against him, which fell short of majority and 2/3. The next night at the Board of Directors meeting, he was voted out of his position (we require the full 9 BOD members there to vote a Chief in, but it says nothing about removing a Chief). The Chairman also has used his position to vote in a program that had to be suspended only after a month due to improper insurance coverage.
Our organization requires that if an elected member (both who were voted out were voted into their position for 3 yr and 2 yr terms) is being voted out of their respective office, you MUST bring that person up on formal charges, have an investigating committee, and trial. These NEVER took place. Motions were made, seconded, and the matters voted on. The current Chairman of the Board had a very specific agenda that night and unfortunately, I seem to be one of the only people to ever really read into any of our governing rules and knew that they were in the wrong.
Now we are dealing with this Chairman having voted in a program with the former President (who up and quit when he didn't like that people were still questioning his program) without proper coverage, putting our members and our organization at risk. What steps do we need to take to have this person removed from their position? Given that he is an elected board member, must we follow the rules or can we make a suggestion that he resign from his position to save him and us the embarrassment of a trial.

Thanks you in advance for any answers and suggestions!

[Hieu H. Huynh]

See FAQ #20.

[Guest Britni S]

Guess I should've been clearer. We know of FAQ 20, but with all of the negative things this person has done to our organization in the last couple of months, I was hoping for an easier way. That's why I brought up the suggesting a resignation from this person. I haven't come across anything saying about it, whether we can or can't ask it of that person.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

You could ask for a resignation. That person could decline the suggestion.

[Joshua Katz]

Isn't finding an easier way to get people out of positions exactly what this person has done?

In any event, removing the Chairman is not the only option.  We're told all the things this person has done - aren't there other board members?  Is no one standing up to these dictatorial actions?

The reality is that most people don't like rules, particularly rules that happen to get in the way of what they want.  That's why we enforce the rules.  You don't need a Chairman who likes rules, you need a board and membership that will enforce them.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

5 hours ago, Guest Britni S said:

What steps do we need to take to have this person removed from their position?

Given that he is an elected board member, must we follow the rules or can we make a suggestion that he resign from his position to save him and us the embarrassment of a trial.

Here is a step which will at least take him out of his chairmanship position temporarily:

   • Have someone else preside.

***

You can use the motion "Suspend the Rules" in one pathway.

You can hire a neutral third party, a parliamentarian, in an alternate pathway.

Your choice.

[g40]

In my experience, such "dictators" are commonly very successful in browbeating and intimidating almost everyone - and end up getting their way. Those who want to follow proper rules are often destroyed.

[Rev Ed]

On 8/12/2016 at 9:17 PM, Kim Goldsworthy said:

You can hire a neutral third party, a parliamentarian, in an alternate pathway.

Then again, a parliamentarian cannot overrule a Chairman.  The Chairman can still make his/her own decision.  It may end up as a waste of money for the organization - or the Chairman may change.  But I bet the former is more likely based on what the original poster has written.

9 hours ago, g40 said:

In my experience, such "dictators" are commonly very successful in browbeating and intimidating almost everyone - and end up getting their way. Those who want to follow proper rules are often destroyed.

The one major disadvantage of having to read through the Constitution, By-laws, rules, and RONR is that unless you a photographic memory it may take a couple minutes to look up the appropriate rule when required.  The Chairman, or any other 'dictator' can use that to their advantage (i.e. "See what I know what I am talking about - he (the other member) doesn't know what he is talking about or else he could tell us right away.  He's just wasting our time.")

[g40]

When and how is the Chairman elected? When is the term up, and can an alternate candidate be found to challenge this dictator? Then, again, if he keeps getting elected, it must be that this behavior is fine with the voters.