Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Can I remove a newly elected ineffective/corrupt executive?


grayduck

Recommended Posts

Hahaha. Thanks Nancy. You're completely right. I actually just got back from spending two hours reading and scanning many pages from RONR at the Hong Kong Central Library. It was unfortunately the 10th version, but because I and my organization are here in Hong Kong, that was all I could get before our Tuesday Executive Meeting and then Friday General Meeting. We're an association of very engaged/excitable/opinionated English teachers that is unfortunately fractured right now into two bitterly-opposed camps.

 

I think I have my head around proper procedures, but my situation is not as clear-cut as I have portrayed it (sorry) -- the treasurer has not yet been proven guilty. The accusations have not been supported with evidence, nor has he provided a defense. This should really all go to trial. It's quite a mess. For now, as understood by members in our organization about my role in all of this per our constitution, I am the frontline judge and jury of how things should proceed. My questions here (with the hardcore thread title) had to do with if there was simple procedural justification to hold back the recall motion to avoid ongoing chaos even if he WAS guilty. Now I know I have to evaluate if there was a provable "continuous breach" by this treasurer. If there wasn't, the recall motion was not given in a timely fashion and won't go to vote.

 

Here is the Motion for New Election. It was submitted three weeks after the election and two weeks into the new term.

 

Motion: That the results of the recent NESTA Elections be declared null and void and that all Executive positions be declared vacant and a new election held.
Rationale: The rationale for this motion is that ineligible voters voted in the recent elections, and that eligible members were not given the opportunity to enroll as members in time to vote -- this was decided by one of the candidates (Treasurer). There were other issues raised regarding unfair advantages other candidates had because they had access to members’ data.

 

The motion to remove the Treasurer is much longer. I won't post that. By the way, the treasurer says he has proof that one the candidates from the OTHER side added "ineligible" voters and that he, the treasure, has actual records to prove this. Amazing.

 

Other members think the motion shouldn't go through because it's messing up morale and the reputation of a significant, but small, volunteer association. And we are already into the third month of a one-year term.

 

By the way... you guys are AWESOME! This is such a fun conversation.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Hahaha. Thanks Nancy. You're completely right. I actually just got back from spending two hours reading and scanning many pages from RONR at the Hong Kong Central Library. It was unfortunately the 10th version, but because I and my organization are here in Hong Kong, that was all I could get before our Tuesday Executive Meeting and then Friday General Meeting. We're an association of very engaged/excitable/opinionated English teachers that is unfortunately fractured right now into two bitterly-opposed camps.

 

I think I have my head around proper procedures, but my situation is not as clear-cut as I have portrayed it (sorry) -- the treasurer has not yet been proven guilty. The accusations have not been supported with evidence, nor has he provided a defense. This should really all go to trial. It's quite a mess. For now, as understood by members in our organization about my role in all of this per our constitution, I am the frontline judge and jury of how things should proceed. My questions here (with the hardcore thread title) had to do with if there was simple procedural justification to hold back the recall motion to avoid ongoing chaos even if he WAS guilty. Now I know I have to evaluate if there was a provable "continuous breach" by this treasurer. If there wasn't, the recall motion was not given in a timely fashion and won't go to vote.

 

Here is the Motion for New Election. It was submitted three weeks after the election and two weeks into the new term.

 

Motion: That the results of the recent NESTA Elections be declared null and void and that all Executive positions be declared vacant and a new election held.

Rationale: The rationale for this motion is that ineligible voters voted in the recent elections, and that eligible members were not given the opportunity to enroll as members in time to vote -- this was decided by one of the candidates (Treasurer). There were other issues raised regarding unfair advantages other candidates had because they had access to members’ data.

 

The motion to remove the Treasurer is much longer. I won't post that. By the way, the treasurer says he has proof that one the candidates from the OTHER side added "ineligible" voters and that he, the treasure, has actual records to prove this. Amazing.

 

Other members think the motion shouldn't go through because it's messing up morale and the reputation of a significant, but small, volunteer association. And we are already into the third month of a one-year term.

 

By the way... you guys are AWESOME! This is such a fun conversation.   :)

 

Assuming that it is your job to determine whether or not the motion you have quoted is in order, on what basis would you say that it is not?

 

RONR, 11th ed., on page 416, says that "If there is evidence that any unidentifiable ballots were cast by persons not entitled to vote, and if there is any possibility that such ballots might affect the result, the entire ballot vote is null and void, and a new ballot vote must be taken", and on page 445 makes it plain that a point of order regarding the matter can be raised at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is my job to determine if the recall motion is in order. I would say it is not in order because it was not motioned or seconded in a timely fashion and the new term of office is already two weeks underway. I would say the motion is in order if there is "continuing breach" because of ineligible voters or eligible voters blocked from their right to vote. But as of now, I do not have hard evidence of this occurring... only accusations. And I doubt if I'll find that hard proof.

 

But I have to investigate the allegations.

 

By the way, several positions were up for election. The president won 103-97, the treasurer (the accused) 120-80, the secondary liaison officer 111-89 and the social coordinator 121-79. If there are enough votes to sway just the count of the president, does that nullify the WHOLE election... for every candidate? Or can there be a re-vote for just the position of president?

 

The person who motioned (late) for the re-election, by the way, was the candidate for president who lost by 6 votes. Sour grapes. But he is regardless determined to get rid of the treasurer who he also accuses of having misused the membership rolls to promote his candidacy. He hates the winning treasurer with a passion and is determined to either hijack the election or get the treasurer out for his failure to perform duties. That's another issue. He and his very intelligent supporters are SURE to challenge my decision if it does not go their way. I have to be on my best game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is my job to determine if the recall motion is in order. I would say it is not in order because it was not motioned or seconded in a timely fashion and the new term of office is already two weeks underway. I would say the motion is in order if there is "continuing breach" because of ineligible voters or eligible voters blocked from their right to vote. But as of now, I do not have hard evidence of this occurring... only accusations. And I doubt if I'll find that hard proof.

 

But I have to investigate the allegations.

 

I very much doubt that you are right about this. The question as to whether or not it is in order to raise a point of order is one thing. The question as to whether or not a point of order is well taken is another.

 

By the way, several positions were up for election. The president won 103-97, the treasurer (the accused) 120-80, the secondary liaison officer 111-89 and the social coordinator 121-79. If there are enough votes to sway just the count of the president, does that nullify the WHOLE election... for every candidate? Or can there be a re-vote for just the position of president?

 

No. it won't nullify the whole election, just the election of the president.

 

The person who motioned (late) for the re-election, by the way, was the candidate for president who lost by 6 votes. Sour grapes. But he is regardless determined to get rid of the treasurer who he also accuses of having misused the membership rolls to promote his candidacy. He hates the winning treasurer with a passion and is determined to either hijack the election or get the treasurer out for his failure to perform duties. That's another issue. He and his very intelligent supporters are SURE to challenge my decision if it does not go their way. I have to be on my best game.

 

Assuming that your organization's constitution designates the current edition of RONR as the organization's parliamentary authority, how do you expect to do very well if you don't even have the book?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I forgot to write, yes, the accused treasure won by a large number, 40. I'm sure there will not be enough ineligible votes to sway his numbers.

 

Back to a previous question, I just mentioned that that person also filed a motion to remove the Treasurer for failure to perform his duties in the previous term. The duties contested include failing to provide reports in a timely fashion, record all monies, keep accurate records of membership, paying fees to spouse for services, etc. He includes the allegations of vote tampering, of course. But if I find no proof of voter tampering, can the motion to remove him proceed for accusations about not fulfilling duties from a previous term?

 

Post #5 Claims there is no statute of limitations in RONR.

 

But I have a gut feeling this should somehow be tied to severity. I'm not sure and can't find anything specifically related to accusations from one term to the next.

 

None of us are perfect and we can almost always find something wrong about anyhow if they are under a microscope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I forgot to write, yes, the accused treasure won by a large number, 40. I'm sure there will not be enough ineligible votes to sway his numbers.

 

Back to a previous question, I just mentioned that that person also filed a motion to remove the Treasurer for failure to perform his duties in the previous term. The duties contested include failing to provide reports in a timely fashion, record all monies, keep accurate records of membership, paying fees to spouse for services, etc. He includes the allegations of vote tampering, of course. But if I find no proof of voter tampering, can the motion to remove him proceed for accusations about not fulfilling duties from a previous term?

 

Post #5 Claims there is no statute of limitations in RONR.

 

But I have a gut feeling this should somehow be tied to severity. I'm not sure and can't find anything specifically related to accusations from one term to the next.

 

None of us are perfect and we can almost always find something wrong about anyhow if they are under a microscope.

 

The question you raise again here was answered in post #10.

 

There is a vast difference between not being perfect and having no idea what you're talking about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question as to whether or not it is in order to raise a point of order is one thing. The question as to whether or not a point of order is well taken is another.

 

I don't understand what you mean by this. How does it affect that I am not right? Now I am in sudden confusion again.

 

 

Assuming that your organization's constitution designates the current edition of RONR as the organization's parliamentary authority, how do you expect to do very well if you don't even have the book?

 
I spent two or three hours in front of the book at the Hong Kong Central Libary today. I'm doing the best I can.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a vast difference between not being perfect and having no idea what you're talking about. 

 

 

I'm trying. That's why I'm here. 

 

Of course none of us are perfect. That's why I had to go back and correct my spelling of "difference" in post #3. Unfortunately, I didn't do it quickly enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Amazon deliver to Hong Kong? (Perhaps by drone.)

If so, get a copy of RONR 11th ed AND a copy of "Roberts Rules.....In Brief" -- the latter is a splendid brief summary of the 20% of the rukes you will need 80% of the time. And you can read it in just a couple of hours (first tme, anyway...)

There are links on this web page (somewhere) to ordr from Amazon.

You can be sure that things will NOT get quiet after next Tuesday. That's meetings for you....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh, the basically true accusations during the vote had to do with a) denying existing members the right to vote, B) inappropriately using the membership list to promote himself while not giving access to the other nominees the same ability, in fact shutting them out, c) making the voting rolls unavailable for examination, d) creating "ghost" members to vote for him, etc. Basically rigging the election. Does this qualify as "so severe" to designate a continuing breach?

 

Denying members the right to vote, if the number of members denied could have affected the result, absolutely constitutes a continuing breach. I'm not quite sure what is meant by creating "ghost" members to vote, but if the implication is that some votes were not, in fact, cast by eligible voters, the same principle applies. The other issues do not constitute a continuing breach.

 

Yes, it is my job to determine if the recall motion is in order. I would say it is not in order because it was not motioned or seconded in a timely fashion and the new term of office is already two weeks underway. I would say the motion is in order if there is "continuing breach" because of ineligible voters or eligible voters blocked from their right to vote. But as of now, I do not have hard evidence of this occurring... only accusations. And I doubt if I'll find that hard proof.

 

You don't need proof. It's not your job to determine if the allegations are correct, merely to determine whether the motion is in order. The allegations involve a continuing breach, so the motion is in order. Determining whether the allegations are correct is, ultimately, up to the assembly.

 

Back to a previous question, I just mentioned that that person also filed a motion to remove the Treasurer for failure to perform his duties in the previous term. The duties contested include failing to provide reports in a timely fashion, record all monies, keep accurate records of membership, paying fees to spouse for services, etc. He includes the allegations of vote tampering, of course. But if I find no proof of voter tampering, can the motion to remove him proceed for accusations about not fulfilling duties from a previous term?

 

No rule in RONR prevents the assembly from removing the officer for the conduct listed, notwithstanding that it occurred during the previous term. Even if we assume that he is not found guilty of the charge of vote tampering, he could still be removed from office on the basis of the other charges.

 

But I have a gut feeling this should somehow be tied to severity. I'm not sure and can't find anything specifically related to accusations from one term to the next.

 

None of us are perfect and we can almost always find something wrong about anyhow if they are under a microscope.

 

RONR leaves the issue of whether a person should be removed from office up to the society, as should you. I think you're getting an inflated sense of your role in this process. Your job is just to determine whether the motions are in order. It is not your role to determine whether the charges against the Treasurer have merit or whether the society should remove the Treasurer from office - that's up to the society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have ordered the book. It'll be here by Friday in time for the General Meeting. But I also just discovered that you can read large parts of the book via the table of contents on Amazon. Some sections are blocked, but not the ones I need! It'll still be good to have the book for the future, as you mentioned.

 

Josh, thanks. You're completely right. I was letting the power go to my head. My wife put me in my place!

 

I have decided the motion to remove the Treasurer is in order and will move forward. I am now cross-checking the voting record to determine if there was enough vote tampering to cause a swing in the election to warrant a new election because of a continuing breach.

 

Another question, can a motion be put forward that would require motions to be first "be approved by the Executive Committee" before members can vote on it? This motion (a series of them) is an obvious attempt by the Exec to consolidate power, but I assume it should still be put forward to the membership for a vote. Let them decide if they want to move more towards more authoritarian leadership. The motion was put forward, by the way, by the Treasurer people are trying to remove. Crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup -- that's OK. You (collectively) can put whatever limitations you like in the bylaws.

Just be sure to follow the bylaw's own rules for amending the bylaws, commonly notice and a 2/3 vote. So check your bylaws for those rules. An attempt to adopt a "power limitation" (or any other bylaw amendment) without following the amendment rules would be improper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But can a membership vote to change the bylaws so that the executive board has more power?

 

Yes, of course.  The membership can amend the bylaws to change the gravitational constant, if they inadvisably choose to.

 

Yes, most likely improper. RONR makes it clear that the executive board has only those powers that the bylaws (or constitution) grant to it. Any "interposing" would have to be in those bylaws as a rule granting such power.

 

John, a special rule of order wouldn't do?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s apparent to me that this thread is doomed to continue for another 45 posts or more, since we are now (or once again, I suppose) being asked to determine whether or not a motion, which we haven’t read, conflicts with a governing document (constitution, I gather) which we haven’t read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, a special rule of order wouldn't do?

.

Well no, I wouldn't think so. Special rules deal with procedure in meetings - p. 15 - and a grant of "motion blocking power" to the Board (which limits the power and rights of the members - p.14), or the like wouldn't seem to fit. I suppose "duties of officers" could cover it, but that seems a bit of a stretch.

It’s apparent to me that this thread is doomed to continue for another 45 posts or more, since we are now (or once again, I suppose) being asked to determine whether or not ...

Have you a better suggestion for something to do in a crisp clear morning on the coast of Maine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you a better suggestion for something to do in a crisp clear morning on the coast of Maine?

 

Yep, get out on the water, which is exactly what I did (although it was on the Chesapeake Bay, and not off the coast of Maine).

 

Mr. Stackpole said he was on the coast of Maine, not off the coast of Maine. He might never even have gotten his feet wet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...