Unqualified new board member

[Guest member]

Members of the Board must meet certain elibility requirements. I anticipate that, at our next meeting, a person who does not meet those requirements will take a seat on the Board, with the blessing of the new Chair.

How can members of the Board challenge that seating? [ it seems best to prevent seating, rather than to have to go through removal process]

My understanding is:

point of order;

if denied, appeal to Board for denying seat [majority? 2/3?]

any further action?

[hmtcastle]

How can members of the Board challenge that seating?

It's not up to the members of the board. Assuming this is an election by the general membership, it's up to the general membership. (Although if this is an appointment by the board to fill a mid-term vacancy then it is, at first, up to the board but, if that fails, the general membership.)

Raise a point of order when he's nominated (or, if not nominated, when he's elected). The chair will rule on your point of order but his ruling can be appealed. A majority vote (in the negative) will overrule the chair.

Better yet, just persuade the other members not to vote for an ineligible candidate. If you can't do that, you may not be able to get them to overturn the chair's ruling.

You might also think about getting a new chair; one who will follow the rules. See FAQ #20 (and Official Interpretation 2006-2)

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Members of the Board must meet certain elibility requirements.

I anticipate that, at our next meeting, a person who does not meet those requirements will take a seat on the Board, with the blessing of the new Chair.

How can members of the Board challenge that seating?

[it seems best to prevent seating, rather than to have to go through removal process]

My understanding is:

point of order;

if denied, appeal to Board for denying seat [majority? 2/3?]

any further action?

One caution.

Since Robert's Rules of Order contains no eligibility requirements, then I must assume that your organization has rules regarding eligibility requirements.

Those requirements might be subject to more than one interpretation.

Your interpretation might be a reasonable interpretation.

But your interpretation might be the minority interpretation, and be in conflict with the majority's interpretation.

So, before making any more assumptions about challenging the new board member, I am saying that you might be targeting the wrong problem. -- You may have an ambiguity in your rules.

Why else would you be the only person in the whole organization to "notice" that the new person isn't qualified to sit on the board?

Why else would 90%-99% of the rest of the organization see no problem?

You'll look pretty foolish to bring up a point of order which is rejected by 100% of the other board members.

* * *

I also find it suspicious that you have not told your "chair" or "president" (i.e., a senior member who ought to know the rules of the organization better than anyone else) about the violation of the rule, but instead plan to spring your trap suddenly, without warning, inside a meeting.

That would be immature and self-defeating.

The ideal handling would be to pre-empt any point of order with some solid homework and some specific questions being asked to the right people, weeks ahead of the meeting date.

Once you are informed that your opinion was incorrect, you won't need to raise any point of order at all.

[hmtcastle]

Once you are informed that your opinion was incorrect, you won't need to raise any point of order at all.

It's too bad more people don't realize they don't know what they're talking about.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

It's too bad more people don't realize they don't know what they're talking about.

What do you mean?

Are you insulting me?

[Josh Martin]

Members of the Board must meet certain elibility requirements. I anticipate that, at our next meeting, a person who does not meet those requirements will take a seat on the Board, with the blessing of the new Chair.

I think we need to understand how this is coming to pass in order to know how to proceed. How was this board member elected/appointed?

How can members of the Board challenge that seating? [ it seems best to prevent seating, rather than to have to go through removal process]

My understanding is:

point of order;

if denied, appeal to Board for denying seat [majority? 2/3?]

any further action?

You have a correct understanding of the process (and a majority vote is sufficient for an appeal), but I think we will need some clarification on how the board member was appointed to determine which body (the board or the general membership) may take action. In the event that it starts with the board, you could get the general membership to step in for "any further action." After the general membership has made a decision, there is no further parliamentary recourse.

One caution.

Since Robert's Rules of Order contains no eligibility requirements, then I must assume that your organization has rules regarding eligibility requirements.

Those requirements might be subject to more than one interpretation.

Your interpretation might be a reasonable interpretation.

But your interpretation might be the minority interpretation, and be in conflict with the majority's interpretation.

So, before making any more assumptions about challenging the new board member, I am saying that you might be targeting the wrong problem. -- You may have an ambiguity in your rules.

I think you would have been better off ending your post at this point, and perhaps including a reference to RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573.

Why else would you be the only person in the whole organization to "notice" that the new person isn't qualified to sit on the board?

Why else would 90%-99% of the rest of the organization see no problem?

You'll look pretty foolish to bring up a point of order which is rejected by 100% of the other board members.

* * *

I also find it suspicious that you have not told your "chair" or "president" (i.e., a senior member who ought to know the rules of the organization better than anyone else) about the violation of the rule, but instead plan to spring your trap suddenly, without warning, inside a meeting.

That would be immature and self-defeating.

The ideal handling would be to pre-empt any point of order with some solid homework and some specific questions being asked to the right people, weeks ahead of the meeting date.

Once you are informed that your opinion was incorrect, you won't need to raise any point of order at all.

There is no reason to believe that the original poster is "the only person in the whole organization" to notice this problem or that "90-99% of the rest of the organization" sees no problem. And while I agree that the chair "ought to know the rules of the organization better than anyone else," my experience on this forum has shown me that this is not the case as often as it should be.

While I am all for advising the poster to double-check his rules and to confer with other members of the association, I see no reason to assume that his interpretation is wrong.

[hmtcastle]

What do you mean?

Are you insulting me?

Certainly not. I was merely acknowledging your suggestion that the original poster (OP) was "the only person in the whole organization to 'notice' that the new person isn't qualified to sit on the board" and that "90%-99% of the rest of the organization [saw] no problem" and finally that, when the dust settled, the OP would be "informed that [his] opinion was incorrect".

In short, it was the OP who, at least in your opinion, seemed not to know what he was talking about. But I apologize if I gave the impression I was referring to you. Perhaps Mr. Martin expressed it better.