Thomas

"Misconduct by Coaches and/or Board Members: Accusations of gross misconduct (Defined as the use of drugs, alcohol, theft or other that would have a negative impact on the organization) by a Board member, will be investigated by the Board. In the event that the Board determines the individual shall be removed from office, said individual will be prohibited from serving on the Board at a later date." This quote is from our current bylaws. In regards for actions that would have a negative impact on the organization, would negative body language, negative attitude at meetings, always combative when any issue whatsoever is brought up.. would this be enough grounds for having a negative impact?

That's where I am starting to wonder if we have to redo the Bylaws. There is no term set for any of the board members, only the officers. And the only way one can get in is if someone is removed due to an egregious action and creates a vacancy or because they resign.

He would not. Voting body consists of Coaches, Commissioners and then VP, Secretary, SAA and Treasurer. We have some people who have been in the org for a long time and have only done things their way, but when changes happen in the next few months, I want to be as prepared as possible. My fear was they would try to argue he cannot vote for himself for the VP position (even though he is the sitting SAA) I feel more confident in shutting that point down. Again, a lot of this is me being so new to this world. I have sat as VP for a couple years but our org has been pretty lax on structure and order.

I do not think anyone is running against me, but I won't know for sure until the February meeting. It is at that meeting that I will officially become President. I was thinking right after that meeting only because I don't have any authority to tell her we are going in a different direction with that position. I've held supervisor positions, I know this conversation is not easy. I also know there's going to be a meltdown. Trying to best handle it, directly after that meeting when I have the authority, maybe meet up later in the week. Do I sit down with a one on one, do I have a group setting. My gut is telling me to pull her aside after the meeting and have a brief discussion and just nip it then. Deal with the social media fall out which I am sure she will go to and blast myself and the org, but, I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

Yes, Sir. I know we have people in our org. that will claim that since he is running for VP he is vacating his seat as Sergeant At Arms. Even though this is not true. I just know they will try to claim he cannot vote for himself running for the VP position. Basically, I want to have a solid argument, proof and grounds to shut that argument down. I think like any organization you have some nay-sayers, some people whom have their own personal interest and/or are used to doing things their way for a long time. I am looking to come in with structure. I want to do things the right way, all the time. Inclusion for all. And I know I have a long way to go, but I want and need so much more knowledge with Robert's Rules. I appreciate all the help here, everyone is amazing. And I am sure I'll be bugging a few of you with all of my questions, haha but it's truly because I want to do things the right way.

You think? Our meeting's are set on Wednesdays, so early in the week have a sit down?

I will do just that! Thank you. I saw some books on Robert's Rules, I did not see this one, I only went with the official. I didn't want to get steered down the wrong path. Thanks again.

I like that a lot, have them provide the rule if they want to challenge something.

I appreciate all input. So many things have "just always been done this way" But it opens up so much room for few people doing the work and others feeling left out because "it's always been done this way" I want things in writing and have things done by the book so there's little room for debate on the structure of the organization. There are no written rules for the Board of Directors to be elected. Only replaced. Perhaps we need to get something in there. Our foundation is strong, we have a pretty big organization, but I want systematic. I've been pouring through the 11th edition, also attending our league meetings which has a little more experience with Robert's Rules. I know it will take time, I just want to be on the right path to run this the best way possible.

We list the board of directors as Head Coaches and Commissioners. The officers consist of President, VP, Secretary, Treasurer and Sgt. At Arms. Under our Article for Elections it states: A. Nominations for Officers shall take place at the January Meeting. B. Voting shall take place at the February meeting and shall be by secret ballot. The nominees receiving the greatest number of votes shall be installed into office at that meeting. C. In case of resignation or other vacancy in the board of directors, the president shall appoint a director to fill the expired term. D. In case of resignation of an officer or a vacancy in any of the offices, the board of directors shall elect to fill said vacancy for the unexpired term. Again, I am soon taking on the Presidency of this organization and I want things to be a little more systematic and smooth. With that being said, I am trying to understand Robert's Rules as best as I can in order to lead with efficiency.

It was stated, that this person is already in position, therefore the "do nothing" does suffice. I want to do things the right way, no where in the bylaws does it state that an appointed position must be voted in to obtain voting rights. My original post was about this. Do they have to be actually voted in, but since they have been already appointed, it seems this does not need to happen. As Robert's Rules and the complexities of it are new to me, I am just seeking advice. The board member does not have any term limits in the by laws. Only the Officers do. Head Coaches and Commissioners in our organization do not have term limits. Is this unwise? Should I bring this up at a meeting? As far as I can tell, they have never had set term limits in the 50+ years we have been around.

Thanks, guys. After the meeting, I will pull them aside.

You are correct. It's At arms. I have never been in this position and I have a feeling other members will try to claim he does not have a right to Vote for himself. I want to be ready with facts when the question arises.

Any advice for having the conversation on changing an appointed position? On our board we have two smaller roles which are appointed by the President. Taking over the presidency soon, I will be changing one of these roles. I know the current appointee will most likely not be happy about this change. Do I make it quick? Clean cut version: "Thank you for everything you have done, I am going in a different direction." Or should I be more sincere? Being more sincere will lead to the appointee not going quietly, I already know. Either way it will not be easy. Any advice will be great.

Forgive me. As I am going to have a lot of questions. We have always used Robert's Rules for parliamentary procedure. I, myself, have taken on a larger role in the organization and I want to do things the right way. Our coaches are board members. We have a lot of members, coaches and commissioners are board members along with the Officers (VP, Secretary, Sgt. in Arms, and Treasurer) 17 voting position in all. I think you did answer it. I think no further action is required. The coach is in the position.