Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Call for Resignation of officer or president


Guest guest_cash

Recommended Posts

We are asking for his resignation so it can be recorded in the meeting notes as a general notice to the membership he is acting in a manner that is not in the best interests of the club. Then we can follow with formal removal procedings at a later date.

Sound correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are asking for his resignation so it can be recorded in the meeting notes as a general notice to the membership he is acting in a manner that is not in the best interests of the club. Then we can follow with formal removal procedings at a later date.

I'd think unless this "general notice" is part of your "formal removal procedings", it's just a lot of huffing and puffing. Why not just go forward with the proceedings? I'd wager Mr. Elsman's morning donut that asking the officer/president to resign will be a fruitless effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are asking for his resignation so it can be recorded in the meeting notes as a general notice to the membership he is acting in a manner that is not in the best interests of the club.

This would be completely inappropriate. While it might be possible to veil your intentions, you didn't do so in this post. Any action taken in a meeting as an intent to disparage or accuse another member is out of order.

Then we can follow with formal removal procedings at a later date.

Sound correct?

No. Do it above board. You can't appoint yourself judge and jury and hurl accusations. If you want to ask him to step down, do it privately. If he refuses, proceed in an honorable way. Read RONR(10th ed.), Chapter XX. Follow the proper steps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is happening is we are making a motion he has said privately he will table to the mext meeting when it will be moot. From reading further on this site it seems that that would be illegal or out of form, but were looking to see if he he refuses to vote on this motion, which i again think is illegal according to this site, i was going to make a motion asking for his resignation due to the fact he did not act in the best interests of the club by having a vote on the first measure.

Any help is appreciated.

Any ideas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is happening is we are making a motion he has said privately he will table to the mext meeting when it will be moot. From reading further on this site it seems that that would be illegal or out of form, but were looking to see if he he refuses to vote on this motion, which i again think is illegal according to this site, i was going to make a motion asking for his resignation due to the fact he did not act in the best interests of the club by having a vote on the first measure.

Any help is appreciated.

Any ideas

Don't let him get away with whatever he is doing. If he tries to postpone the issue to the next meeting without the assembly's consent raise a Point of Order that he doesn't have the authority to do that (and demand some sort of citation proving he has that authority). Be prepared to Appeal any adverse ruling (see RONR pp. 240-252 for details). Also, see p. 642 "Remedies Against Misconduct or Dereliction of Duty in Office" for how to deal with a President who is refusing to perform his duties. Finally see Official Interpretation 2006-2 and this script for details on how to suspend the rules to have someone else preside even though the President is at the meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is happening is we are making a motion he has said privately he will table to the mext meeting when it will be moot. From reading further on this site it seems that that would be illegal or out of form, but were looking to see if he he refuses to vote on this motion, which i again think is illegal according to this site, i was going to make a motion asking for his resignation due to the fact he did not act in the best interests of the club by having a vote on the first measure.

Any help is appreciated.

Any ideas

This sounds like entrapment. If he is, or has been, violating bylaws, rules of order, parliamentary procedure, or whatever, then take the appropriate disciplinary action as either your bylaws detail, or as noted in Chapter XX of RONR. If he hasn't done anything wrong yet such that you can depose him with cause, then leading him into such a situation (especially knowing how he will react) in order to create a disciplinary circumstance seems as inappropriate as whatever he's suspected of doing.

My two cents. Keep the change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I do not understand the explanation offered in post #7, I understand posts 6 and 10 even less, and I don't know which motion (the motion "he has said privately he will table to the next meeting" or the "motion asking for his resignation") George is suggesting not be made at all.

Can we start over? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I do not understand the explanation offered in post #7, I understand posts 6 and 10 even less, and I don't know which motion (the motion "he has said privately he will table to the next meeting" or the "motion asking for his resignation") George is suggesting not be made at all.

Can we start over? :)

Yes, please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might it be possible that the President is appropriately blocking 'improper' motions or agendas by a disgruntled faction on the Board and non-Board members? Is this a personal/political/power dispute unrelated to the actual best interest of your club? My concern is the vagueness of the alleged infraction of the President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would be completely inappropriate. While it might be possible to veil your intentions, you didn't do so in this post. Any action taken in a meeting as an intent to disparage or accuse another member is out of order.

I see no parliamentary reason the proposed motion would be out of order, provided that the language of the motion does not violate decorum.

what is happening is we are making a motion he has said privately he will table to the mext meeting when it will be moot. From reading further on this site it seems that that would be illegal or out of form, but were looking to see if he he refuses to vote on this motion, which i again think is illegal according to this site, i was going to make a motion asking for his resignation due to the fact he did not act in the best interests of the club by having a vote on the first measure.

The motion to Lay on the Table is not the appropriate tool. The appropriate tool to delay a motion to the next meeting is the motion to Postpone Definitely, which is debatable and requires a majority vote for adoption. If such a motion would truly make the main motion moot, however, it is out of order. It is not correct that it is illegal to refuse to vote on a motion. While a member has a duty to vote on a question on which he has an opinion (except for cases in which he has a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members), a member has a right to abstain and cannot be compelled to vote.

This sounds like entrapment. If he is, or has been, violating bylaws, rules of order, parliamentary procedure, or whatever, then take the appropriate disciplinary action as either your bylaws detail, or as noted in Chapter XX of RONR. If he hasn't done anything wrong yet such that you can depose him with cause, then leading him into such a situation (especially knowing how he will react) in order to create a disciplinary circumstance seems as inappropriate as whatever he's suspected of doing.

Mr. Foulkes, I'm not sure this is an accurate understanding of the situation (although, to be fair, the original poster has been rather vague in his follow-up post).

Might it be possible that the President is appropriately blocking 'improper' motions or agendas by a disgruntled faction on the Board and non-Board members? Is this a personal/political/power dispute unrelated to the actual best interest of your club? My concern is the vagueness of the alleged infraction of the President.

The fact that a motion is a "personal/political power dispute unrelated to the best interest of [the] club" does not, in and of itself, make a motion improper in the parliamentary sense or give the President the authority to block it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Foulkes, I'm not sure this is an accurate understanding of the situation (although, to be fair, the original poster has been rather vague in his follow-up post).

At this point we have been presented with no facts or evidence to suggest or support a claim that the president is guilty yet of any wrongdoing, parliamentary or otherwise. Apparently some in the organization don't like him, and think he hasn't been acting in the best interest, although we have no idea at all in what regard.

But rather than proceed with any direct disciplinary procedures, the group has a plan:

1. ask for his resignation, which they no doubt assume he'll reject, and use that as evidence of his "acting in a manner that is not in the best interest of the club"

and when that fails,

2. make a motion that they know he is against and will thus try to (improperly) postpone it, yet we don't know what this motion is, or if it might in fact even be out of order anyway, and we can only assume the group is in favor of the motion, although nothing supports that either. It may just be a setup.

Then the group will "follow with formal removal procedings [sic] at a later date." (emphasis added, of course) They can't remove him now? They must wait until he refuses to resign, improperly postpones a motion (and even then wait until a later date)? Gadzooks, the beast. He should be shot, and beaten severely with a hard-cover edition of RONR 11!

Sorry, but I'm not yet convinced we've got another tyrannosaurus presidentus on our hands here. Sounds like a bunch of rabble-rousers overdosed on some sour grapes at the last annual fundraiser and they're looking for someone to finger for it.

Though once the facts of this situation are revealed, I may be popping a crow into the microwave for dinner. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no parliamentary reason the proposed motion would be out of order, provided that the language of the motion does not violate decorum.

The motion, per se, is not out of order. Here's the point of my maligned position. In regards to ruling a motion out of order, the chair is governed by the principle that if he only suspects that a motion is not made in good faith, he should give the maker of the motion the benefit of the doubt. P. 332, l. 7-9.

However, in this case, on this thread, we have the benefit of knowing the intention behind the motion -- straight from the mover's mouth. That intention is to have it "recorded in the meeting notes as a general notice to the membership he is acting in a manner that is not in the best interests of the club." A motion to the exact effect of the intention would be out of order. In a meeting, he can't properly "notify" the membership that a member is "acting in a manner that is not in the best interests of the club." So, he has decided to consume time in a meeting by using parliamentary forms to attempt to accomplish this, behind the veil of making a request. His intention is not to have the request satisfied, but to inform the members of an opinion that would clearly be out of order if directly stated.

In a meeting, there is no basis to rule it out of order, but with clear knowledge of the motive, I don't see how it is in order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point we have been presented with no facts or evidence to suggest or support a claim that the president is guilty yet of any wrongdoing, parliamentary or otherwise. Apparently some in the organization don't like him, and think he hasn't been acting in the best interest, although we have no idea at all in what regard.

But rather than proceed with any direct disciplinary procedures, the group has a plan:

1. ask for his resignation, which they no doubt assume he'll reject, and use that as evidence of his "acting in a manner that is not in the best interest of the club"

and when that fails,

2. make a motion that they know he is against and will thus try to (improperly) postpone it, yet we don't know what this motion is, or if it might in fact even be out of order anyway, and we can only assume the group is in favor of the motion, although nothing supports that either. It may just be a setup.

It's not entirely clear to me that the motion the poster speaks of in his follow-up post and the motion to call for the President's resignation are the same motion.

The motion, per se, is not out of order. Here's the point of my maligned position. In regards to ruling a motion out of order, the chair is governed by the principle that if he only suspects that a motion is not made in good faith, he should give the maker of the motion the benefit of the doubt. P. 332, l. 7-9.

However, in this case, on this thread, we have the benefit of knowing the intention behind the motion -- straight from the mover's mouth. That intention is to have it "recorded in the meeting notes as a general notice to the membership he is acting in a manner that is not in the best interests of the club." A motion to the exact effect of the intention would be out of order. In a meeting, he can't properly "notify" the membership that a member is "acting in a manner that is not in the best interests of the club." So, he has decided to consume time in a meeting by using parliamentary forms to attempt to accomplish this, behind the veil of making a request. His intention is not to have the request satisfied, but to inform the members of an opinion that would clearly be out of order if directly stated.

In a meeting, there is no basis to rule it out of order, but with clear knowledge of the motive, I don't see how it is in order.

Mr. Wynn, if a motion is made to call for the President's resignation, then I believe it would be in order for a member to express the opinion that the President is not acting in the best interests of the club. The stricter rules of decorum are mainly because criticism of a member is not ordinarily germane to the motion, but in the case of a motion to censure (or something similar), the member is the subject of the motion and criticism is germane to the debate. While there are certainly still limits even in such cases, I think suggesting that the President's actions are not in the best interests of the club is well within those limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Wynn, if a motion is made to call for the President's resignation, then I believe it would be in order for a member to express the opinion that the President is not acting in the best interests of the club. The stricter rules of decorum are mainly because criticism of a member is not ordinarily germane to the motion, but in the case of a motion to censure (or something similar), the member is the subject of the motion and criticism is germane to the debate. While there are certainly still limits even in such cases, I think suggesting that the President's actions are not in the best interests of the club is well within those limits.

Mr. Martin, it seems to me that post number 3 indicates that this board is intending to act as an investigating committee with the goal of bringing "notice" to the general membership that this member has been found guilty by them and, from that finding, to proceed with "formal removal proceedings." Nothing in the posts represents that the intention of the motion is anything other than this. This is not in keeping with the rules for disciplinary procedures.

As an interesting analog (at least one that I find interesting), the motion to Lay on the Table is an example of a parliamentary motion that is proper or out of order based on its "evident intent" or "evident object," even though no intent or object is stated in the motion itself. P. 202, l. 12-14 & p. 207, l. 21-23. Also, this motion is commonly the subject of misuse by trying to adopt the effect of a different parliamentary motion under its name. This too seems to be the case with the explanation found in post 3, which essentially asks, "Can we act as an investigating committee if we call it a request for resignation and if we call our report a notice to members?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that many of the conclusions being posted are based upon strained and tortured interpretation of what few facts have been presented, and hence are not very enlightening, so let’s start again.

During a meeting of the board of the Society whose bylaws appear on pages 565-70 of RONR, a member of the board moves “that John Doe be, and he is hereby, asked to submit his resignation as a member of this board.” Is there anything inherently improper in such a motion?

In my original response, I indicated that I thought (actually, I’m afraid I didn’t give it much thought) that such a motion could properly be made, but I now have some doubt about it. The motion has no real teeth in it, but it is, nevertheless, an expression of disapproval. A motion to censure may also be said to have no real teeth in it, but I doubt that a motion to censure is in order in meetings of subordinate boards or committees. General Robert apparently didn’t think such a motion would be in order (see Q&A #355 in PL), but that was back in the days when boards and committees were treated in a much more similar fashion.

Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During a meeting of the board of the Society whose bylaws appear on pages 565-70 of RONR, a member of the board moves “that John Doe be, and he is hereby, asked to submit his resignation as a member of this board.” Is there anything inherently improper in such a motion?

In my original response, I indicated that I thought (actually, I’m afraid I didn’t give it much thought) that such a motion could properly be made, but I now have some doubt about it. The motion has no real teeth in it, but it is, nevertheless, an expression of disapproval. A motion to censure may also be said to have no real teeth in it, but I doubt that a motion to censure is in order in meetings of subordinate boards or committees. General Robert apparently didn’t think such a motion would be in order (see Q&A #355 in PL), but that was back in the days when boards and committees were treated in a much more similar fashion.

Any thoughts?

I would conclude that the board is free to request some outside entity take some action, i.e. ask an officer to resign. I'm sure that it would be in order for the same board to request that you resign from the Maryland Bar, even though you could (and rightly should), reject or ignore the request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would conclude that the board is free to request some outside entity take some action, i.e. ask an officer to resign. I'm sure that it would be in order for the same board to request that you resign from the Maryland Bar, even though you could (and rightly should), reject or ignore the request.

OK, but what about my question? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any thoughts?

I'm afraid that the motion itself is not necessarily an expression of disapproval, nor is it a clear expression that the member should no longer be on the board.

Accept my apologies in advance as I delve into the hypothetical. Through strained and tortured rumination, I could see the following situations:

1. The board desires to nominate the member to a loftier position in the parent organization, a requirement of which is that no member shall be eligible to be a candidate so long as he is serving on a board of a subordinate organization.

2. An ill-advised bluff, used as a show of solidarity, could be afoot, such as "we all plan to submit our resignations to teach The Organization a lesson and make the members respect our authority, and we want you to do the same." The same could be done to protest a proposed action of the assembly, without the intention of truly resigning (like I said, it's ill-advised).

3. The board member could have made it known that he is quitting, so, the motion asking for his resignation could be a request that procedure be followed, in an effort to make the process more clear, without leaving the assembly of the society to wonder.

In any of these situations, the motive behind the motion need not be in the motion, especially if it is understood by all. However, the intention seems to play heavily into determining whether or not the motion is in order.

Situation 1 still leaves the question of whether or not it is appropriate for a board to request that action be taken that would conflict with action taken by the assembly of the society (i.e. requesting that a board member resign after being appointed by the assembly). I'd say it could be argued that a resignation, or the calling for it, does not conflict with the appointment, since it is the member's right to make such a request to be excused from a duty.

To sum it up, the motion itself does not present a proposal that is clearly out of order, but I don't see that any debate about misconduct or dereliction of duty would be in order, since that's not the board's decision to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any thoughts?

I would conclude that the board is free to request some outside entity take some action, i.e. ask an officer to resign. I'm sure that it would be in order for the same board to request that you resign from the Maryland Bar, even though you could (and rightly should), reject or ignore the request.

OK, but what about my question? :)

Oh, Snap!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...