DrPVSuglia Posted September 2, 2011 at 06:05 AM Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 at 06:05 AM 1. Is there some sort of "emergency" ruling regarding the removal of a Board member based on criminal behavior, specifically harrassment or threatening other Board Members in which the police had to be summoned? It may be a very long time before we have another meeting with a quorum where we can have him voted out in accordance with our bylaws.2. Is it truly verboten for a husband and wife to be members of the Executive Committee, and would the IRS frown on this when we submit our form 1023? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted September 2, 2011 at 06:34 AM Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 at 06:34 AM 1. Is there some sort of "emergency" ruling regarding the removal of a Board member based on criminal behavior, specifically harrassment or threatening other Board Members in which the police had to be summoned? It may be a very long time before we have another meeting with a quorum where we can have him voted out in accordance with our bylaws.In all probability, no (pp. 642-3).2. Is it truly verboten for a husband and wife to be members of the Executive Committee, and would the IRS frown on this when we submit our form 1023?Nothing in RONR would prohibit it; as an attorney about the tax question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted September 2, 2011 at 05:49 PM Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 at 05:49 PM 1. Is there some sort of "emergency" ruling regarding the removal of a Board member based on criminal behavior, specifically harrassment or threatening other Board Members in which the police had to be summoned? It may be a very long time before we have another meeting with a quorum where we can have him voted out in accordance with our bylaws.No. The rules for removal of a board member are the same, no matter who had to be summoned. 2. Is it truly verboten for a husband and wife to be members of the Executive Committee,No, it's truly not. and would the IRS frown on this when we submit our form 1023?That sounds like a question for the IRS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrPVSuglia Posted September 2, 2011 at 10:54 PM Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 at 10:54 PM RONR it its final pages addresses either misconduct at meetings or misconduct based on hearsay of events outside of a meeting. It DOES NOT address direct harrassment and threats made toward board members outside of a meeting by an offending board member in which police action was needed, obviously not a hearsay situation. Because NEITHER of the situations that RONR describes applies to our situation, I feel that the appropriate action would be for our remaining board to simply remove the offender by vote and to amend the bylaws to ward off such offenses from happening in the future, such as performing criminal background checks on prospective board members. If we had done a criminal background check, we would have known that the offender was likely to create such a situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted September 2, 2011 at 11:15 PM Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 at 11:15 PM :) RONR it its final pages addresses either misconduct at meetings or misconduct based on hearsay of events outside of a meeting. It DOES NOT address direct harrassment and threats made toward board members outside of a meeting by an offending board member in which police action was needed, obviously not a hearsay situation. Because NEITHER of the situations that RONR describes applies to our situation, I feel that the appropriate action would be for our remaining board to simply remove the offender by vote and to amend the bylaws to ward off such offenses from happening in the future, such as performing criminal background checks on prospective board members. If we had done a criminal background check, we would have known that the offender was likely to create such a situation.RONR, in Chapter XX, addresses the proper method of dealing with offenses occurring in a meeting and the proper method of dealing with offenses occurring elsewhere than in a meeting. The latter obviously covers "direct harrassment (sic) and threats made toward board members outside of a meeting by an offending board member" (regardless of whether or not police action was needed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted September 2, 2011 at 11:42 PM Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 at 11:42 PM RONR it its final pages addresses either misconduct at meetings or misconduct based on hearsay of events outside of a meeting. It DOES NOT address direct harrassment and threats made toward board members outside of a meeting by an offending board member in which police action was needed, obviously not a hearsay situation. Because NEITHER of the situations that RONR describes applies to our situation, I feel that the appropriate action would be for our remaining board to simply remove the offender by vote and to amend the bylaws to ward off such offenses from happening in the future, such as performing criminal background checks on prospective board members. If we had done a criminal background check, we would have known that the offender was likely to create such a situation.Emphasis added.I thing it does when covering offenses outside of a meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted September 4, 2011 at 02:15 AM Report Share Posted September 4, 2011 at 02:15 AM Nothing in RONR would prohibit it; as an attorney about the tax question.I normally wouldn't mention such a minor typo, but I misread this as saying you were an attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted September 4, 2011 at 10:05 AM Report Share Posted September 4, 2011 at 10:05 AM I normally wouldn't mention such a minor typo, ...That's okay. J.J. just joined the club to which DrPVSuglia and I already belong as proud members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted September 4, 2011 at 06:43 PM Report Share Posted September 4, 2011 at 06:43 PM I normally wouldn't mention such a minor typo, but I misread this as saying you were an attorney.Key board is bad. It should be "ask" an attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted September 4, 2011 at 07:45 PM Report Share Posted September 4, 2011 at 07:45 PM Key board is bad. It should be "ask" an attorney.If that were the case, you would have typed, "ey board." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted September 5, 2011 at 02:06 AM Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 at 02:06 AM If that were the case, you would have typed, "ey board." I did, but this time I caught it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted September 5, 2011 at 09:13 PM Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 at 09:13 PM Key board is bad. It should be "ask" an attorney.If that were the case, you would have typed, "ey board." I did, but this time I caught it.J.J., From now on, your task assignment is to post answers without using the letter "k", so that this doesn't happen anymore. Hardly any questions involve Take from the Table anyway, right? ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted September 6, 2011 at 05:12 AM Report Share Posted September 6, 2011 at 05:12 AM J.J., From now on, your task assignment is to post answers without using the letter "k", so that this doesn't happen anymore. Hardly any questions involve Take from the Table anyway, right? ...It's the whole bloody keyboard that's going bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.