removing member at large, imposing censure

[Guest Jane]

A member who is an ex board member and currently appointed member at large is very much against the new board. The president was voted out and all other members resigned. The new board saw to it that by-laws (one, old, unsigned, undated copy existed) were rewritten and adopted, that rules are followed, and that the purposes as stated in the by-laws are being addressed. The old board congregates in the back during meetings and is generally negative. One in particular is against anything the board does, is arrogant and basically a trouble maker. He stated, "Why do we have all these rules, anyway? We never needed them before." Most recently, he was rude to the two members of the board who ran the last meeting in the absence of both the Pres and Treasurer. The previous president instigated unruliness as he joked..."looks like the board has lost control!" Admittedly, the VP did not have the gavel and did not call them to order.

My question is, can a member of the board, during new business, call for the censure and/or removal from office of this individual? Is any previous discussion of same permitted? Must the motion come from the floor? Please advise, many thanks.

[Tim Wynn]

From what you posted, so many things seem to be out of whack that I would suggest that the members and officers need to take a look at RONR and RONR in brief, to familiarize themselves with the basics of proper procedure.

[Tim Wynn]

A board shouldn't be running a GM meeting. Two members shouldn't be running any meeting.

Only board members have a right to attend or participate in a board meeting, and disruptive nonmembers can be tossed out by the chairman.

Unruly members should be handled by the chair in accordance with the rules.

[Guest Jane]

I thought RONR states that in the absence of Pres, VP runs meeting, in absence of Pres and VP, Sec. calls to order.

[Guest Gary c Tesser]

Well, yes, Jane. Why did the VP not have the gavel?

Which kind of meeting was this -- and more to the point, were the former board members actually still members of the assembly that was meeting?

[Guest Jane]

It was a regular monthly meeting, previous board members are paid members. The president wrote but did not go over the agenda with the VP. No idea why he didn't provide the gavel since he knew he would not attend a while prior to the meeting. The Treasurer's absence was last minute. The VP did not want to chair the meeting; the secretary thought there are no rules allowing for the regular meeting to be changed or canceled other than lack of a quorum.

As an entirely new board, they are trying to be better than the last "good ol' boy network" of no rules or proper procedure, so anything they are trying to do by the rules is better than it was. The members are also clueless to proper procedure.

[Guest Gary c Tesser]

I agree with Mr Wynn. Particularly with the last sentence of his 2:45 PM post (#3 on this thread), although I lament his use of Robert’s Rules’ traditionally laconic style: the chair – whoever, at any time, is the presiding officer at the moment – should – NEEDS – to know what the rules are, particularly the rules of decorum and discipline. (RONR, Chapter Twenty, Disciplinary Procedures, mostly just the first six pages, about breaches of order during the meeting; and Decorum in Debate, around p. 384). Don’t let anyone -- the disruptive person or, more importantly, the other members -- labor under the delusion that a disruptive person, member or not, maintains the right to stay in the room.

Which means, yes, please: you, the president, the VPn and anyone else who might reasonably be expected to preside, needs to read (over and over!) RONR - In Brief. (The first reading you can do before you sit down, after reading it. No kidding. Buy it and don’t allow yourself to sit down till you have read it. Your first time. Really: as you exit the bookstore, read it now.) Especially the members of a newly-elected board. (And note, to keep perspective: RONR - In Brief doesn’t have a corresponding chapter on Disciplinary Procedures.)

And the secretary was basically right: don’t cancel the meeting, or call it off.

(And you don’t need a gavel, or an agenda, to prohibit disruptive behavior.)

Oh, and finally, you got no busines having a vice-president who is unwilling to preside in the absence of the president. That’s his only real job, and, in the parliamentary context, therefore his only qualification for office. (Make sure you all know that when you’re electing him, and -- better -- when he’s considering running for the office.)

[Guest Jane]

Thank you, Gary. I have already suggested to the Pres that the chapter on Member Responsibilities needs to be New Business for next meeting and passed out. The members have no idea that this is THEIR meeting, the past board has run ramshod over them. When I asked the past pres for the by-laws, he refused to address my question. No one else spoke up about it. It wasn't until the new board that I bought RONR Simplified and Applied. No, I look up items as they come up...you are right; I shall read cover to cover with my highlighter! I know for a fact no board member other than the Sec owns RONR.

[Dan Honemann]

It wasn't until the new board that I bought RONR Simplified and Applied.

You bought the wrong book.

[Josh Martin]

It wasn't until the new board that I bought RONR Simplified and Applied. No, I look up items as they come up...you are right; I shall read cover to cover with my highlighter!

I would buy The Right Book before you get into the heavy reading and highlighting. The book you bought is a third-party knockoff. If you want something "simplified and applied," pick up a copy of RONR In Brief, as it is written by the same authorship team as the full edition.