tomt Posted April 12, 2011 at 10:40 PM Report Share Posted April 12, 2011 at 10:40 PM Our by-laws state "a member may be terminated by a majority vote of the Board of Directors for non-payment of dues,30 days after the due date" The member in question is 5 months in arrears, and is a member of the Board of Directors. Is it necessary to invite this member to a Board meeting to vote on termination?Thanks, Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted April 12, 2011 at 10:43 PM Report Share Posted April 12, 2011 at 10:43 PM Our by-laws state "a member may be terminated by a majority vote of the Board of Directors for non-payment of dues,30 days after the due date" The member in question is 5 months in arrears, and is a member of the Board of Directors. Is it necessary to invite this member to a Board meeting to vote on termination?Thanks, TomA member is a member with all the rights of a member until the member no longer is a member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted April 12, 2011 at 10:48 PM Report Share Posted April 12, 2011 at 10:48 PM A member is a member with all the rights of a member until the member no longer is a member.And (thought it's unlikely) he might even be a member of the board after he's terminated as a member of the organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted April 12, 2011 at 11:32 PM Report Share Posted April 12, 2011 at 11:32 PM Our by-laws state "a member may be terminated by a majority vote of the Board of Directors for non-payment of dues,30 days after the due date." The member in question is 5 months in arrears, and is a member of the Board of Directors. Is it necessary to invite this member to a Board meeting to vote on termination?• No, not because of termination.• Yes, because is is STILL a member of the board.Since you have a customized rule NOT lifted from Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR 10th ed.), and since your rule makes NO mention of "invitations" or "in-person-ness," then a reasonable interpretation would be: THERE IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT.That being said, a member of the board remains a member of the board until something happens (not if something WILL happen or MAY happen).So, you MUST include 100% of all board members to meetings of the board.That is, just because he is 5 months in arrears, that fact by itself does not turn a sitting board member into a sitting duck."Quack!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted April 13, 2011 at 01:41 AM Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 at 01:41 AM The person in question could be terminated as a member of the organization per the organization's By-law. However, unless there is a requirement to be a member of the organization to be on the Board, then this person would still be a member of the Board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomt Posted April 13, 2011 at 04:29 AM Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 at 04:29 AM The person in question could be terminated as a member of the organization per the organization's By-law. However, unless there is a requirement to be a member of the organization to be on the Board, then this person would still be a member of the Board.To be a member of the Board, the person must first be a member of the club. In this case the outgoing President is a member of the Board per the By-Law. If his membership is terminated does this not terminate his position on the Board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted April 13, 2011 at 09:45 AM Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 at 09:45 AM To be a member of the Board, the person must first be a member of the club. In this case the outgoing President is a member of the Board per the By-Law. If his membership is terminated does this not terminate his position on the Board?Not necessarily.The body responsible for enforcing the "dues rule" may not enforce the "dues rule" in all its ramifications.For example, it could be possible that the body responsible may choose to allow such a person to sit on a committee or two.In similar fashion, the body might allow this person to continue in any number of services.Remember, we are not dealing with Robert's Rules of Order. We are dealing with YOUR unique "dues rule".Under Robert's Rules of Order, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. -- Being in arrears of one's dues brings no penalty, under the default rules of RONR Tenth Edition 2000.That is:• You don't have to be a member of the organization to sit on a board.• You don't have to be a member to be president.It's your rule. It is your enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Ralph Posted April 13, 2011 at 10:45 AM Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 at 10:45 AM To be a member of the Board, the person must first be a member of the club.Is that in the bylaws, or is it something you're just assuming? And if it is in the bylaws, does it say that you must be a member to be elected, or to be on the board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 13, 2011 at 06:53 PM Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 at 06:53 PM Our by-laws state "a member may be terminated by a majority vote of the Board of Directors for non-payment of dues,30 days after the due date" The member in question is 5 months in arrears, and is a member of the Board of Directors. Is it necessary to invite this member to a Board meeting to vote on termination?Thanks, TomYou seem to be going about it backward. Most societies refuse to accept resignations from people who are in arrears on their dues, so that dues continue to accrue. You're making it easier to leave and escape future liability. I guess you know what you're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 13, 2011 at 07:00 PM Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 at 07:00 PM To be a member of the Board, the person must first be a member of the club. In this case the outgoing President is a member of the Board per the By-Law. If his membership is terminated does this not terminate his position on the Board?The President is a member of the board per the bylaws. But is membership in the club really listed in the bylaws as one of the qualifications of being president? It would depend how that paragraph is worded whether removal from the club would cause him to lose the office of president. No rule in RONR would require that, so you have to find the language in your bylaws. According to RONR the only qualifications you need for president is majority approval in an election. You could elect me president if you want. (But I'm afraid I would have to decline.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomt Posted April 13, 2011 at 11:33 PM Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 at 11:33 PM The President is a member of the board per the bylaws. But is membership in the club really listed in the bylaws as one of the qualifications of being president? It would depend how that paragraph is worded whether removal from the club would cause him to lose the office of president. No rule in RONR would require that, so you have to find the language in your bylaws. According to RONR the only qualifications you need for president is majority approval in an election. You could elect me president if you want. (But I'm afraid I would have to decline.)Nothing in the By-Laws state a person must be a member to be elected an officer. Does not common sense or precedent play any part? As to the member "escaping future liabilities" The majority of members want this person off the Board of Directors, and out of the club. This seemed to be the easiest solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted April 13, 2011 at 11:40 PM Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 at 11:40 PM Nothing in the By-Laws state a person must be a member to be elected an officer. Does not common sense or precedent play any part? As to the member "escaping future liabilities" The majority of members want this person off the Board of Directors, and out of the club. This seemed to be the easiest solution.RONR says unless "bylaws or an established practice" provide otherwise (p. 431 ll. 17-18), a non-member can be elected to an officer position. So, common sense doesn't really play a part, but precedent (i.e. "established practice") might be in your favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted April 14, 2011 at 02:00 AM Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 at 02:00 AM RONR says unless "bylaws or an established practice" provide otherwise (p. 431 ll. 17-18), a non-member can be elected to an officer position. So, common sense doesn't really play a part, but precedent (i.e. "established practice") might be in your favor.Well, I think you and the poster are confusing precedent (which is created as the result of a ruling of the chair and any subsequent appeal), with custom, but at any rate, I don't think "established practice" will be sufficient to remove the member from the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted April 14, 2011 at 03:19 AM Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 at 03:19 AM Well, I think you and the poster are confusing precedent (which is created as the result of a ruling of the chair and any subsequent appeal), with custom, but at any rate, I don't think "established practice" will be sufficient to remove the member from the board.Just trying to help a brother out. But you are correct, custom doesn't seem to be a help here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted April 14, 2011 at 03:26 AM Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 at 03:26 AM Our by-laws state "a member may be terminated by a majority vote of the Board of Directors for non-payment of dues,30 days after the due date" The member in question is 5 months in arrears, and is a member of the Board of Directors. Is it necessary to invite this member to a Board meeting to vote on termination?Thanks, TomAll the defendant's due process rights must be respected. However, the defendant does not vote on the question of his guilt or the question of what punishment is to be inflicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanh49 Posted April 14, 2011 at 04:29 AM Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 at 04:29 AM The person in question could be terminated as a member of the organization per the organization's By-law. However, unless there is a requirement to be a member of the organization to be on the Board, then this person would still be a member of the Board.I disagree IMO it would be a perfectly reasonable of them to interpret termination of membership to include termination from office, in this case the board, even if the bylaws said non-members can be elected to and hold office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted April 14, 2011 at 04:34 AM Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 at 04:34 AM I disagree IMO it would be a perfectly reasonable of them to interpret termination of membership to include termination from office, in this case the board, even if the bylaws said non-members can be elected to and hold office.Yes. If the offender's continued membership is deemed to be harmful to the society, how much more harmful it is that he should continue to hold a position of trust! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomt Posted April 15, 2011 at 12:32 AM Author Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 12:32 AM Yes. If the offender's continued membership is deemed to be harmful to the society, how much more harmful it is that he should continue to hold a position of trust!Thanks for all the advise, I think we will follow the last post of Rob, and let some common sense rule.Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 15, 2011 at 12:40 AM Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 12:40 AM RONR says unless "bylaws or an established practice" provide otherwise (p. 431 ll. 17-18), a non-member can be elected to an officer position. So, common sense doesn't really play a part, but precedent (i.e. "established practice") might be in your favor.Whoops, hang on a second. Even if this is an "established practice", which I strongly doubt, that citation is not persuasive in this case.Prohibiting someone from being elected to an office does not imply a prohibition from holding office. Election is a one-time event. Holding office is a continuing process. A qualification for election is met if it is properly satisfied as of the time of the election. But unless that qualification is made a continuing condition of holding office, it has no bearing after the election is complete. For example, a bylaw provision that "no person over the age of 35 shall be eligible for election as Youth Coördinator" would not kick someone out of the office on their 35th birthday if they were duly elected."This guy had already been elected, so that even if that rule might have been applicable at one point, it has no bearing now. And besides, when he was elected he presumably was a member. So, if the bylaws do not prohibit a non-member from holding office (which we already know they don't) then there are no grounds for removing an officer solely because he is no longer a member of the society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 15, 2011 at 12:42 AM Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 12:42 AM I disagree IMO it would be a perfectly reasonable of them to interpret termination of membership to include termination from office, in this case the board, even if the bylaws said non-members can be elected to and hold office.Not unless they can point to a rule that supports that position. They are relying on a rule in the bylaws that gives them the power to terminate a membership, based on dues payments. The rule says nothing about removal from office. They are apparently doing this because they cannot build a sufficient case for direct removal from office for cause, and have chosen this back-door method. By removing him from membership for dues payments they hope that, if they close their eyes and wish real hard, this will somehow end his term of office, which they could not accomplish by due process.Well, it won't. Rules do not take on magic, unspoken, unwritten powers just because we don't like somebody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanh49 Posted April 15, 2011 at 04:29 AM Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 04:29 AM Not unless they can point to a rule that supports that position. They are relying on a rule in the bylaws that gives them the power to terminate a membership, based on dues payments. The rule says nothing about removal from office. They are apparently doing this because they cannot build a sufficient case for direct removal from office for cause, and have chosen this back-door method. By removing him from membership for dues payments they hope that, if they close their eyes and wish real hard, this will somehow end his term of office, which they could not accomplish by due process.Well, it won't. Rules do not take on magic, unspoken, unwritten powers just because we don't like somebody.Why are we imputing bad motives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 15, 2011 at 04:45 AM Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 04:45 AM Why are we imputing bad motives?The motives may be wonderful. I'm impugning the lack of respect for due process. If this guy is the weasel they say he is, they are well rid of him, but they are trying to take the easy way by hanging him up over his dues, which will not work anyway, instead of going after him for whatever malfeasance they are concerned about, which will work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.