Addressing violations of our club's by-laws by our club's officers/directors

[bobby101]

Over the past 2 years we have had clear violations of our club's by-laws by our officers and directors. Two of the violations involved sanctions imposed by the board and which have already been carried out. The third involved the board usurping a right of the membership to consider honoring our longest time active member. All 3 violations were an abuse of power and position by the board in an effort to punish the 3 members; two of whom are former Presidents of the club. There is no ambiguity in our by-laws; these are violations of a member's rights. Calling a special meeting to address this abuse of the sanctioned members rights is prohibited by our by-laws; this was a by-law change instituted 6 years ago when the board did not want to face the possibility of defending their actions of sanctioning a member to the membership. Prior to this change, a member had the right to petition for a special meeting to address a situation like this. One of the members of this forum has suggested you may have some option for me to consider, short of bringing a suit against the board. Thank you, bobby101

[Kim Goldsworthy]

. . . yadda yadda yadda . . .  clear violations of our club's by-laws by our officers and directors. . . . yadda yadda yadda . . . All 3 violations were an abuse of power . . . yadda yadda yadda . . .

 

Q. One of the members of this forum has suggested you may have some option for me to consider, short of bringing a suit against the board.

I don't know who that party is.

 

But if I were you, I would either

(a.) rescind the election of the bad directors.

(b.) use the disciplinary chapter (XX) in RONR.

(c.) plot and cabal to elect better directors.

[Josh Martin]

Calling a special meeting to address this abuse of the sanctioned members rights is prohibited by our by-laws

 

If it is indeed correct that calling a special meeting of the membership is not possible, are you willing to wait until the next regular meeting of the membership?

 

If so, we may have some options. I understand from your previous posts that, for whatever reason, you would prefer not to punish the board, even though we are told that "All 3 violations were an abuse of power and position by the board in an effort to punish the 3 members," which sounds pretty serious to me. So I'll try to outline a few non-punitive options. I think you really need to accept the possibility, however, that those efforts will be unsuccessful and punishment will be necessary, and I think most people would prefer being censured or even being removed from office to being sued.

 

So, some options I can think of...

• Have the membership adopt a motion expressing its opinion that the sanctioned members were innocent of all charges filed against them.
• Have the membership adopt a motion ordering the board to apologize for its actions.
• Have the membership adopt a motion censuring the board for its actions
• Remove some or all of the directors from office (or simply elect new board members when their terms expire)

A majority vote is sufficient for the first three cases. For the last, see FAQ #20. I would also note that these options are not mutually exclusive.

 

If these options are, for some reason, unsatisfactory, perhaps you can continue to clarify what exactly your goal is in all this.

 

If it is not possible to call a special meeting and you are not willing to wait until the next regular meeting of the membership, then I suppose we don't have options for you after all. Any RONR-based options would require a meeting.

[bobby101]

Kim: If you'll read the posting immediately above this one, you'll see who the person is and the options he identified. Josh: Thanks for the ideas. To your response: The next regular meeting of the membership is 4 weeks from tomorrow, the 19th of October and I think that's acceptable. Yes, these are clearly abuses of power and position as I have indicated--no qualifications, no ambiguity. And, it's serious, at least to me. I agree that the board behind these actions should be punished but I don't want to pursue that; I am not a vindictive person. I will mention the three options that you've identified to the President and vice-President when I meet with them next week. I continue to hope we can avoid a suit. bobby101

[Edgar Guest]

One of the members of this forum has suggested you may have some option for me to consider . . . 

 

I don't know who that party is.

 

Kim: If you'll read the posting immediately above this one, you'll see who the person is and the options he identified.

 

There is no consistent "posting immediately above this one". If you want to link to another post, do so. If you want to quote something from another post, do that.

[bobby101]

Mr. Guest: Thank you for that correction. I just made a bad assumption that when people went to my posting they would see everything that I see on my screen. bobby101

[Edgar Guest]

Thank you for that correction. I just made a bad assumption that when people went to my posting they would see everything that I see on my screen.

 

Actually, I think I misunderstood what you were saying. When you referred (in Post #1) to "One of the members of this forum", Mr. Goldsworthy (in Post #2) said, "I don't know who that party is". 

 

Then, in Post #4, you (I think) indicated that it was Mr. Martin (who just happened to post after Mr. Goldsworthy).

 

I think you can see how this could be confusing but I apologize for my misunderstanding.

[bobby101]

Mr Guest: No need to apologize. This RONR forum has been extremely helpful to me and you and Josh, particularly, are welcome for both your continuing interest and knowledge. bobby101