J. J. Posted June 23, 2010 at 05:13 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 05:13 PM Assume that the bylaws say, "or until a successor is elected," and that the Secretary is listed as an officer, is elected by the membership, and all officers are board members. Joe is Secretary.The Society discovered that Joe was treasurer of another organization, in another town, in the 1990's. He stole some money and got a suspended sentence (and resigned as treasurer). The Society members find out about it, and want to remove him. Questions:1. At the meeting, w/o notice, one member will move to rescind the election. Is the notion "That the election of Joe be rescinded," sufficient, or must the ground, "because he was convicted of stealing money from another organization," be included?2. This does not affect Joe's conduct as secretary. None of Joe's duties as secretary involve money. A point of order will be raised that the motion is out of order because the assembly can only consider "misconduct or neglect of duty in office." A. Should the point be well taken?B. If well taken, is it appealable?C. If not well taken, is it appealable?My gut reaction is:1. No, it need not be included in the motion.2. A. No, B. Yes C. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted June 23, 2010 at 05:23 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 05:23 PM In answering your own #1 with a "No" was that "No" to Sufficient?or"No" to Included? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 23, 2010 at 05:26 PM Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 05:26 PM In answering your own #1 with a "No" was that "No" to Sufficient?or"No" to Included?No, it is not necessary to include the cause in the motion (though not out of order).I did edit for clarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted June 23, 2010 at 05:51 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 05:51 PM The Society discovered that Joe was treasurer of another organization, in another town, in the 1990's. He stole some money and got a suspended sentence (and resigned as treasurer). The Society members find out about it, and want to remove him. They only want to remove him from office? This sounds more like an offense on par with violating the understood requirement that members be "of honorable character and reputation," (p. 624, l. 3-4). Such an offense would lend itself more toward expulsion from the society than merely removal from office. However, if membership isn't a requirement for office, he'll still in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 23, 2010 at 05:58 PM Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 05:58 PM They only want to remove him from office? This sounds more like an offense on par with violating the understood requirement that members be "of honorable character and reputation," (p. 624, l. 3-4). Such an offense would lend itself more toward expulsion from the society than merely removal from office. However, if membership isn't a requirement for office, he'll still in office.1. They are happy with him as a member, but don't think, because of the conviction, he should be an officer. That isn't the question.2. He is a nonmember officer. That isn't the question, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted June 23, 2010 at 06:04 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 06:04 PM I did edit for clarity.Thereby making it look like Mr. Stackpole didn't read your post carefully.But, of course, he's now free to edit his post.And so it begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 23, 2010 at 06:07 PM Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 06:07 PM Thereby making it look like Mr. Stackpole didn't read your post carefully.But, of course, he's now free to edit his post.And so it begins.On his implied suggestion and noting so while copying his response.Now, that isn't the question either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 23, 2010 at 06:41 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 06:41 PM Assume that the bylaws say, "or until a successor is elected," and that the Secretary is listed as an officer, is elected by the membership, and all officers are board members. Joe is Secretary.The Society discovered that Joe was treasurer of another organization, in another town, in the 1990's. He stole some money and got a suspended sentence (and resigned as treasurer). The Society members find out about it, and want to remove him. Questions:1. At the meeting, w/o notice, one member will move to rescind the election. Is the notion "That the election of Joe be rescinded," sufficient, or must the ground, "because he was convicted of stealing money from another organization," be included?2. This does not affect Joe's conduct as secretary. None of Joe's duties as secretary involve money. A point of order will be raised that the motion is out of order because the assembly can only consider "misconduct or neglect of duty in office." A. Should the point be well taken?B. If well taken, is it appealable?C. If not well taken, is it appealable?My gut reaction is:1. No, it need not be included in the motion.2. A. No, B. Yes C. Yes.I agree with your gut reaction. I would, however, prefer a motion "that Joe be removed from the office of Treasurer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 23, 2010 at 06:42 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 06:42 PM Questions:1. At the meeting, w/o notice, one member will move to rescind the election. Is the notion "That the election of Joe be rescinded," sufficient, or must the ground, "because he was convicted of stealing money from another organization," be included?2. This does not affect Joe's conduct as secretary. None of Joe's duties as secretary involve money. A point of order will be raised that the motion is out of order because the assembly can only consider "misconduct or neglect of duty in office." A. Should the point be well taken?B. If well taken, is it appealable?C. If not well taken, is it appealable?My gut reaction is:1. No, it need not be included in the motion.2. A. No, B. Yes C. Yes.I feel that the Point of Order should be ruled well taken. I had always understood "in office" to refer to the office the member is being removed from, not some other office he held in a different organization in the 1990's. It might be wise to keep a close eye on Joe, but he hasn't done anything wrong as Secretary yet.I agree that the ruling could be appealed either way and that the motion does not need to include the charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 23, 2010 at 06:43 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 06:43 PM Thereby making it look like Mr. Stackpole didn't read your post carefully.But, of course, he's now free to edit his post.And so it begins.Mr. Mountcastle, you seem to get the facts wrong every time you go off on this little bug-a-boo of yours.It really is time to give it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 23, 2010 at 06:48 PM Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 06:48 PM I agree with your gut reaction. I would, however, prefer a motion "that Joe be removed from the office of Treasurer."Except he hasn't handled money since the 1990's. He's currently secretary.Thanks for the answers. A lot of this looks like it will be properly left to the judgment of the assembly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 23, 2010 at 06:57 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 06:57 PM Except he hasn't handled money since the 1990's. He's currently secretary.I don't think that any of this matters. You are assuming that "misconduct" is limited to misconduct in the performance of duties in office, which I don't believe to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:05 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:05 PM I don't think that any of this matters. You are assuming that "misconduct" is limited to misconduct in the performance of duties in office, which I don't believe to be the case.Well, I was the one assuming that. Perhaps I'm interpreting RONR, 10th ed., pg. 642, lines 29-32 incorrectly. Does the "in office" qualifier in the phrase "misconduct or neglect of duty in office" only apply to "neglect of duty" and not to "misconduct?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:06 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:06 PM I don't think that any of this matters. You are assuming that "misconduct" is limited to misconduct in the performance of duties in office, which I don't believe to be the case.So misconduct from 10+ years ago, or perhaps even tonight at Sully's Raw Bar and Lounge, can lead to misconduct charges and get you booted out of office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:09 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:09 PM So misconduct from 10+ years ago, or perhaps even tonight at Sully's Raw Bar and Lounge, can lead to misconduct charges and get you booted out of office?If a majority of the members want you gone, yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:12 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:12 PM So misconduct from 10+ years ago, or perhaps even tonight at Sully's Raw Bar and Lounge, can lead to misconduct charges and get you booted out of office?If a majority of the members want you gone, yeah. Dan and I will volunteer to lend our procedural prowess tonight at Sully's if you need a couple of Two-Fisted Parliamentarians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:13 PM Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:13 PM I don't think that any of this matters. You are assuming that "misconduct" is limited to misconduct in the performance of duties in office, which I don't believe to be the case.He can't be removed from the office of treasurer, because he was never treasurer in this organization and left the office of treasurer in the organization more than a decade ago. You also misunderstand my position (though you do understand my point). A point of order will be raised that the motion is out of order because the assembly can only consider"'misconduct or neglect of duty in office." I was of the opinion that the point of order on that ground should not be well taken. I would let the ruling on the point of order on the matter be appealed, however.I think the assembly may look at the bigger picture of what constitutes "misconduct" within the meaning p. 642. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:14 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:14 PM Dan and I will volunteer to lend our procedural prowess tonight at Sully's if you need a couple of Two-Fisted Parliamentarians First round's on me. Beafeaters, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:19 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:19 PM You also misunderstand my position (though you do understand my point). A point of order will be raised that the motion is out of order because the assembly can only consider"'misconduct or neglect of duty in office." I was of the opinion that the point of order on that ground should not be well taken. I would let the ruling on the point of order on the matter be appealed, however.I think the assembly may look at the bigger picture of what constitutes "misconduct" within the meaning p. 642.I don't misunderstand your position. As I said at the outset, I agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:24 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:24 PM J.J., I see the problem. When I stated my preference for the form of the motion to use, I referred to "Treasurer" instead of "Secretary". That was entirely an inadvertence; I meant to say Secretary. Sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:37 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:37 PM First round's on me. Beafeaters, right? Straight up, if you please, and after a while we won't care what office Joe holds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:38 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:38 PM Straight up, if you please, and after a while we won't care what office Joe holds. Joe? Joe who???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 23, 2010 at 08:31 PM Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 08:31 PM J.J., I see the problem. When I stated my preference for the form of the motion to use, I referred to "Treasurer" instead of "Secretary". That was entirely an inadvertence; I meant to say Secretary. Sorry about that.Feel free to edit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted June 24, 2010 at 01:06 AM Report Share Posted June 24, 2010 at 01:06 AM A point of order will be raised that the motion is out of order because the assembly can only consider"'misconduct or neglect of duty in office." Not true.Even in 1923's "Parliamentary Law," Robert confirmed that MORALS (viz., things done outside of any meeting context or any officer context, too), and CHARACTER, (which is most definitely outside of any duty or any parliamentary context) is sufficient to use as "cause" for expulsion.An arrest by the police on a crime is sufficient. You don't need a criminal/civil trial RESULT to remove the targeted member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted June 24, 2010 at 01:17 PM Report Share Posted June 24, 2010 at 01:17 PM Not true.Even in 1923's "Parliamentary Law," Robert confirmed that MORALS (viz., things done outside of any meeting context or any officer context, too), and CHARACTER, (which is most definitely outside of any duty or any parliamentary context) is sufficient to use as "cause" for expulsion.An arrest by the police on a crime is sufficient. You don't need a criminal/civil trial RESULT to remove the targeted member.So, perhaps the title of FAQ#20 is very carefully chosen after all -- 'how can we get rid of officers we don't like...'I guess misconduct is in the eye of the beholder. And doesn't that mean, in practice, that an organization can rescind the election of any officer, so long as the reason for removal is tailored to be a complaint about morals, character, misconduct (somewhere/anywhere in that person's life history)? Mr. Martin's more limited interpretation makes a lot of sense to me:I feel that the Point of Order should be ruled well taken. I had always understood "in office" to refer to the office the member is being removed from, not some other office he held in a different organization in the 1990's. It might be wise to keep a close eye on Joe, but he hasn't done anything wrong as Secretary yet.although I think 'in office' would mean 'while holding the current office', not specifically just while carrying out the duties of the current office.ETA:And, of course, the limited interpretation would cause problems also, if it meant the organization was not allowed to consider some really egregious conduct in Joe's past which had just come to light, simply because the egregious conduct didn't happen WHILE he was an officer of the organization... As usual, the right or wrong of a particular case seems to come down to the judgement of the assembly.So, after dithering, I think the point of order in J.J.'s example should be ruled not well taken -- ruling it well taken would attempt to take the decision out of the assembly's hands, where it seems to properly belong. If people feel Joe's misconduct 10 years ago in another organization shouldn't count against him today, they should vote against the motion to rescind his 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.