Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Call for Resignation of officer or president


Guest guest_cash

Recommended Posts

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.

In my positing of the question, I should have made it more clear that the motion is intended as an expression of disapproval. Even so, I gather that you think that the underlying factual details may still control the question as to the motions propriety. I suppose this may very well be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my positing of the question, I should have made it more clear that the motion is intended as an expression of disapproval. Even so, I gather that you think that the underlying factual details may still control the question as to the motions propriety. I suppose this may very well be the case.

Correctly gathered. :)

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.

I think J.J.'s somewhat cryptic reference to an "outside entity" is regarding the officer's relationship with society itself, as opposed to the executive board. Just as the board can formally suggest to the society that it remove the officer, it can formally suggest to the officer that he submit his resignation to the society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think J.J.'s somewhat cryptic reference to an "outside entity" is regarding the officer's relationship with society itself, as opposed to the executive board. Just as the board can formally suggest to the society that it remove the officer, it can formally suggest to the officer that he submit his resignation to the society.

It is a bit broader. A board could adopt a motion requesting that the governor of a state resign, even if the governor was not a member of the society. While that would be of questionable effectiveness, it would be in order.

To paraphrase the first answer, "It is in order, but why bother."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to know if as a BOG can I make a motion to ask for the resignation of another BOG or the President himself?

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.

In and of itself, the originally suggested motion would give no indication of any behavior by the requestee; it's an act of the requester, cash. If cash were to include a preamble or something, stating the reason for the request, it would amount to accusations. According to RONR chapter XX, there should be charges and a trial. It seems to me that a motion to request resignation in order to proceed with disciplinary proceedings at a later date (as suggested by cash) amounts to making a motion and not even intending to honor the results, as they're fixing to have the trial later. It seems to be adding an unnecessary and unwarranted intermediary step.

It seems to me the proper course would be to present the charges as appropriate, and start the proceedings that are prescribed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Well, at least I understand why you are so adamant on this issue. That would certainly be inappropriate. I didn't get the idea at all that this was anything more than a fancy censure motion, likely with the goal of influencing the opinions of the general membership (or possibly the President himself, but the poster seems to think this will be unsuccessful). I did not get the perception that the board was claiming it was the investigative committee.

According to RONR chapter XX, there should be charges and a trial. It seems to me that a motion to request resignation in order to proceed with disciplinary proceedings at a later date (as suggested by cash) amounts to making a motion and not even intending to honor the results, as they're fixing to have the trial later. It seems to be adding an unnecessary and unwarranted intermediary step.

Well, I suspect that if the President actually did resign, the board members would not attempt to initiate formal disciplinary proceedings. I suspect the reason disciplinary proceedings are already being contemplated is because the board members know that the President will refuse the request. It's main purpose seems to be to attempt to influence the general membership. I do agree, however, that it is an "unnecessary and unwarranted intermediary step."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our poster has either left us high and dry, is lurking, or has been Gotcha'd all too successfully by the Captcha, and we're left (as all too often) arguing the points amongst ourselves. Ah, well.

I still think if the President has behaved in such a way previously to warrant disciplinary action, they ought to get on with it. Frankly, it doesn't sound that way from the "facts" (ahem) we've been left with. So the gang is trying to add to the charges of "acting not in the best interest" by also refusing to resign when asked. And if that action is the nail in the coffin, I can only imagine how lame the other offenses have been. But I'll hold out for Guest_cash to illuminate me.

My reading in the early stages led me to think the motion they were going to bring at a meeting that the president would "table" is not a motion to resign but some other motion that he would intend to thwart. Read post #7 again. They want to bring a motion to the president that they expect he will "table", and if he doesn't bring a vote on it, THEN they will ask for his resignation. So, what is this other motion that they're going to use as bait? Is it even a valid motion, or would it be in order? Do they even support it, or are they trying to "trick" the president into making a parliamentary misstep so they can point fingers at him from the back of the room and say "SEEE???? He's no good, he must resign!!!"

So many holes in this one-sided story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our poster has either left us high and dry, is lurking, or has been Gotcha'd all too successfully by the Captcha, and we're left (as all too often) arguing the points amongst ourselves. Ah, well.

I still think if the President has behaved in such a way previously to warrant disciplinary action, they ought to get on with it. Frankly, it doesn't sound that way from the "facts" (ahem) we've been left with. So the gang is trying to add to the charges of "acting not in the best interest" by also refusing to resign when asked. And if that action is the nail in the coffin, I can only imagine how lame the other offenses have been. But I'll hold out for Guest_cash to illuminate me.

My reading in the early stages led me to think the motion they were going to bring at a meeting that the president would "table" is not a motion to resign but some other motion that he would intend to thwart. Read post #7 again. They want to bring a motion that the president that they expect he will "table", and if he doesn't bring a vote on it, THEN they will ask for his resignation. So, what is this other motion that they're going to use as bait? Is it even a valid motion, or would it be in order? Do they even support it, or are they trying to "trick" the president into making a parliamentary misstep so they can point fingers at him from the back of the room and say "SEEE???? He's no good, he must resign!!!"

So many holes in this one-sided story.

"This post has been edited by David A Foulkes: Today, 07:20 AM"

Yeah, but not enough. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as the board can formally suggest to the society that it remove the officer, it can formally suggest to the officer that he submit his resignation to the society.

I agree with this analysis, which means that the correct answer to the question I asked in the second paragraph of post #20 is “no, there is nothing inherently improper in such a motion.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this analysis, which means that the correct answer to the question I asked in the second paragraph of post #20 is “no, there is nothing inherently improper in such a motion.”

I concur that there is nothing inherently improper. However, there is nothing inherently proper, either. I don't see that it would be always in order or always out of order.

For example, if it is customary for the President to resign upon reaching a certain age, and the assembly of the society, foreseeing this, has adopted a request that the President not follow the custom of resigning, I don't believe that a motion from the board calling for the resignation of the President would be in order.

Also, I believe that the motion cannot imply guilt, since that would not be for the board to decide. This restriction would extend to debate on the question as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...