On removal from office, can a member vote at his own trial?

[hmtcastle]

No. The rule in RONR, 10th ed., pg. 642, line 34 - pg. 643, line 5 is an exception to the general rule that elections to office cannot be rescinded that applies only if certain language is included in the Bylaws and the rescission is for disciplinary reasons. When there is no disciplinary action, this rule does not apply, and therefore the rule in RONR, 10th ed., pg. 298, lines 1-8 is controlling.

Thanks.

I seem to have overlooked the previous lines which refer to removal "for cause -- that is, misconduct or neglect of duty in office".

Or else I was misled by our frequent references to FAQ #20 and the notion that an officer could be removed simply because "we don't like him". I think I was envisioning a scenario where, for whatever reason, a resignation was not desirable and yet all agreed it was time for a change. The FAQ seems to suggest that rescinding an election is a purely technical act with no need to show "cause". We just don't like you. It's not working out. And you won't resign so we're rescinding your election. No hard feelings. Maybe next year.

[Josh Martin]

Or else I was misled by our frequent references to FAQ #20 and the notion that an officer could be removed simply because "we don't like him".

Well, I think the implication was that they "didn't like him" because of some disciplinary reason, although considering the sorts of questions we get here from time to time, changing the title of that question may be appropriate.

[hmtcastle]

Well, I think the implication was that they "didn't like him" because of some disciplinary reason, although considering the sorts of questions we get here from time to time, changing the title of that question may be appropriate.

Yes, like we don't like him because he insists on following the rules. Talk about malfeasance!

[Trina]

....

Or else I was misled by our frequent references to FAQ #20 and the notion that an officer could be removed simply because "we don't like him". I think I was envisioning a scenario where, for whatever reason, a resignation was not desirable and yet all agreed it was time for a change. The FAQ seems to suggest that rescinding an election is a purely technical act with no need to show "cause". We just don't like you. It's not working out. And you won't resign so we're rescinding your election. No hard feelings. Maybe next year.

I've had a similar thought process (which you've elucidated very nicely), and was over-generalizing FAQ#20; as a result, I suggested to a poster in a recent thread that an improperly conducted election might be rescinded, and was directed, rather gently, to the same p. 298 citation by Mr. Honemann .

Reading FAQ#20 (especially its title) in isolation is clearly not enough.

[hmtcastle]

I've had a similar thought process (which you've elucidated very nicely), and was over-generalizing FAQ#20; as a result, I suggested to a poster in a recent thread that an improperly conducted election might be rescinded, and was directed, rather gently, to the same p. 298 citation by Mr. Honemann .

Reading FAQ#20 (especially its title) in isolation is clearly not enough.

And see this post for an interesting use of the multi-quote feature (as below).

So, this particular use of a motion to rescind something previously adopted (i.e. rescinding an election) has unique limiting conditions? In other words, it can only be done if the assembly needs/wants to depose an officer for 'misconduct or neglect of duty in office'?

Yes, I suppose you could put it that way. Ordinarily, an election to office cannot be rescinded (p. 298, l. 1-8).