question about "or until successor is elected"

[Trina]

From a recent thread (initial reference was to RONR p. 574):

...there seems to be a change in the definition of the conditions under which the membership can remove an officer whose term is defined this way -- now described as 'at the pleasure of the membership' (with no implication that the removal must be for cause, as I seem to remember from the 10th edition). The further explanation on pp. 653-654 seems pretty clear that the officer need not have done anything wrong...

That's right, the officer needn't have done anything wrong (but since he's being kicked out anyway, he may as well have done so, right?).

Any chance that someone from the authorship team might comment on the reason(s) for this change in the 11th edition?

It certainly will be more straightforward to explain to people, if there is no longer a 'for cause' aspect necessary when replacing an officer whose term is defined this way. Is there any other reasoning behind it?

Comments from non-authors also welcome, of course...

[Guest Edgar]

It certainly will be more straightforward to explain to people, if there is no longer a 'for cause' aspect necessary when replacing an officer whose term is defined this way.

I remember thinking, when I read Mr. Gerber's comment, that the language in FAQ #20 ("officers we don't like") now matches the rule (or vice versa). I recall previous discussions where someone (I think Mr. Martin) would point out that it wasn't enough to not like the officer, he had to have done something wrong.

[Guest guest]

I see it as just a clarification of what was always true....no reason needed

[Trina]

I see it as just a clarification of what was always true....no reason needed

No, see RONR 10th ed. p. 642 l. 29 - p. 643 l. 5

specifically, p. 642 ll. 29-32 (emphasis added):

'Except as the bylaws may provide otherwise, any regularly elected officer of a permanent society can be deposed from office for cause -- that is, misconduct or neglect of duty in office -- as follows:..."

[Guest guest]

No, see RONR 10th ed. p. 642 l. 29 - p. 643 l. 5

specifically, p. 642 ll. 29-32 (emphasis added):

'Except as the bylaws may provide otherwise, any regularly elected officer of a permanent society can be deposed from office for cause -- that is, misconduct or neglect of duty in office -- as follows:..."

Yes, I'm aware of what it says, but when you move to rescind the election under the 10th, did you really need to show cause during debate on a motion to rescind the election? If not, what's the real difference?

[Guest guest]

I think it was just understood the society wouldn't put itself through removing an officer without some reason......but you didn't need to show it under the 10th.

[Trina]

Yes, I'm aware of what it says, but when you move to rescind the election under the 10th, did you really need to show cause during debate on a motion to rescind the election? If not, what's the real difference?

The proper procedure under the 10th edition would have been to show cause (misconduct or neglect of duty in office) -- whether or not all organizations actually followed the rule in practice is a different question.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Any chance that someone from the authorship team might comment on the reason(s) for this change in the 11th edition?

It certainly will be more straightforward to explain to people, if there is no longer a 'for cause' aspect necessary when replacing an officer whose term is defined this way. Is there any other reasoning behind it?

Comments from non-authors also welcome, of course...

The reasoning was that when the organization has made it possible to remove an officer by the same vote as to change

any other previously adopted action, it does not seem appropriate to impose the requirement of “cause” upon the assembly in order for it to do so. And, as Guest_guest points out, from a practical standpoint the idea that there must be some cause, without any need to demonstrate what that cause is, is not quite enforceable.

On the other hand, the very notion of disciplinary proceedings that require conduct of a trial based on alleged charges and specifications presumes that “cause” is necessary to remove an officer using that procedure.

[Trina]

The reasoning was that when the organization has made it possible to remove an officer by the same vote as to change

any other previously adopted action, it does not seem appropriate to impose the requirement of “cause” upon the assembly in order for it to do so. And, as Guest_guest points out, from a practical standpoint the idea that there must be some cause, without any need to demonstrate what that cause is, is not quite enforceable.

...

Would it be fair to say that the previous rule was an attempt to regulate the content of debate (debate on a motion to rescind an election, treated differently than debate on any other motion to rescind something previously adopted), and that this attempted regulation was what "does not seem appropriate" in your words?

[Burke Balch]

It certainly true that "cause" is treated very differently a) if there is just debate on a motion to remove during which members can argue whether or not there is "cause" and if there must be specific charges and specifications, witnesses testifying concerning the relevant facts, and opening and closing arguments by managers vs. defense, followed by debate and voting that is directed individually to each specification and then to each charge. To require "cause" makes much more sense with respect to the latter procedure; by contrast with a trial, such a requirement risks being meaningless in practice with respect to the former procedure--since each individual member is likely to have, and act upon, his or her own idea of what "cause" means in the particular context.

Consider, also, the new language on page 573, lines 9-16. It emphasizes that some organizations may indeed want to make a deliberate choice effectively to hold their officers accountable throughout their terms of office, removable whenever the requisite number of members (which, with previous notice, can be just a majority) deem it advisable, on whatever basis is persuasive to that number of members. That is what is meant by serving "at the pleasure of the membership."

[Burke Balch]

I have no idea how the emoticon got into the previous post.

[Dan Honemann]

I have no idea how the emoticon got into the previous post.

I think you have an "Edit" button you can click on to make whatever changes you want.

[Guest Edgar]

I have no idea how the emoticon got into the previous post.

It occurs when you type "b" followed by a right parenthesis. It shouldn't happen if you un-check the "Enable emoticons" box under "Post Options" (on the right side of the window).

[Guest guest]

The use of a parenthesis causes this unfortunate snafu sometimes.

[Guest Edgar]

The use of a parenthesis causes this unfortunate snafu sometimes.

It's unfortunate (as are all graphic emoticons) but it's not a snafu. It's a keyboard shortcut, all of which can be seen here.

[Trina]

I have no idea how the emoticon got into the previous post.

Yes, lists of this sort are very common around here:

a)

c)

d)

e)

I avoid it via the lazy approach of typing b ), although Guest Edgar's solution sounds more elegant.

Thank you for taking the time to write the post containing the offending emoticon, by the way.

[Trina]

...Consider, also, the new language on page 573, lines 9-16. It emphasizes that some organizations may indeed want to make a deliberate choice effectively to hold their officers accountable throughout their terms of office, removable whenever the requisite number of members (which, with previous notice, can be just a majority) deem it advisable, on whatever basis is persuasive to that number of members. That is what is meant by serving "at the pleasure of the membership."

I assume this is supposed to be a reference to p. 574, same line numbers?

[Burke Balch]

Thank you for the guidance to this relative "newbie" on avoiding unwanted emoticons. And yes, I got the page number wrong.

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, lists of this sort are very common around here:

a)

<emoticon>

c)

d)

e)

Also common are: © and ®, which are produced by typing either an upper- or lower-case c or r in parentheses, and unfortunately, this transliteration cannot be prevented by un-checking the [x]Enable emoticons? box.

Most common of these are the questions regarding 501©3 corporations.