Impartiality by Chair

[Guest Daren]

If a matter comes before the membership based on a decision made by the Board, and a Special meeting is called for and all requirements are met, but before the meeting takes place, the President and 8 Board memebrs (3 did not sign) send a letter along with a Ballot stating their opinion on why they feel their decision should be upheld, and is asking teh memebrship to vote as they did on the Ballot, is this not against the principal of teh President to not show partiality? Should the President step down from the position when any meeting is held since as president she has shown Partiality to the membership. If the President must step aside for any further discussions on this matter, who takes the place since 8 of the Board members have also shown partiality towards the matter? One one of the 3 who did not sign the letter recommending how the membership should vote be in line to take the Presidential Chair for all discussions on this matter and at the meeting where a new vote will be held? By showing Partiality in this matter, would this be a matter of disiplinary action since not only was it in writing to every member, but was also posted on the organizations web site by the President.

[Josh Martin]

If a matter comes before the membership based on a decision made by the Board, and a Special meeting is called for and all requirements are met, but before the meeting takes place, the President and 8 Board memebrs (3 did not sign) send a letter along with a Ballot stating their opinion on why they feel their decision should be upheld, and is asking teh memebrship to vote as they did on the Ballot, is this not against the principal of teh President to not show partiality?

No. The President is only required to maintain the appearance of impartiality during a meeting.

Should the President step down from the position when any meeting is held since as president she has shown Partiality to the membership.

In my opinion, the fact that the President has signed a letter supporting the board's decision does not, in and of itself, suggest that the President should relinquish the chair when the issue is under consideration. If the President feels he is unable to preside impartially on the matter, then yes, he should relinquish the chair.

If the President must step aside for any further discussions on this matter, who takes the place since 8 of the Board members have also shown partiality towards the matter?

Again, the only requirement is that the presiding officer maintains the appearance of impartiality during the meeting. The fact that the board members have signed a letter supporting the action does not preclude them from presiding. If the President does relinquish the chair for some reason (perhaps to speak in debate on the motion), the default person to take over would be the Vice President. If the Vice President(s) have already spoken on the issue, then the chair may appoint some other member, subject to the approval of the assembly.

One one of the 3 who did not sign the letter recommending how the membership should vote be in line to take the Presidential Chair for all discussions on this matter and at the meeting where a new vote will be held?

There is no reason it must be one of these three, nor is there any reason it needs to be a board member at all. As I said, if the President relinquishes the chair, it goes to the Vice President (and down the line in order if you have multiple VPs). If the President and all VPs have all shown partiality during the meeting, then the President appoints a member as Chairman Pro Tempore, subject to the approval of the assembly. There is no automatic line of chair succession beyond the President and VPs.

By showing Partiality in this matter, would this be a matter of disiplinary action since not only was it in writing to every member, but was also posted on the organizations web site by the President.

It is up to your organization to determine whether the communication warrants disciplinary action against the President and/or other members of the Board of Directors. See FAQ #20, anything in your Bylaws on discipline, and Ch. XX of RONR for more information. I should point out, again, that there is no requirement that the President remains impartial except when he is presiding over a meeting.

[Gary Novosielski]

If a matter comes before the membership based on a decision made by the Board, and a Special meeting is called for and all requirements are met, but before the meeting takes place, the President and 8 Board memebrs (3 did not sign) send a letter along with a Ballot stating their opinion on why they feel their decision should be upheld, and is asking teh memebrship to vote as they did on the Ballot, is this not against the principal of teh President to not show partiality?

No. The president is not required to be impartial, except in his conduct while presiding. Furthermore, the board did approve, by a majority, the measure that they are putting forward to the membership. It is clear that they support it. There's no reason why they should not, either as a board or individually, make members aware of their reasoning, whether orally, in writing, by skywriting, Morse code, or whatever method appeals to them.