Removal by an Invalid Meeting

[dndhart]

2 elected officers and 2 directors have called a meeting to remove the President, both from office and from the society. The group trying to remove the President does not like being challenged and held accountable which has resulted in a personality conflict.

A mailing took place of the notice for the meeting.

The President and a number of members know the meeting is invalid. The Society's Constitution and Bylaws have not been followed regarding the calling of the meeting. The Disciplinary proceedure in RONR is not being followed.The group is also basing their reasons on mis-information.

1) How do we inform the membership that the meeting is invalid? This group is likely to ignore this fact and try to hold the meeting.

2) If they do hold the meeting, what would the next step be for the President, Directors and members?

3) Does the President show up at the meeting or send out a notice that the meeting in invalid?

4) The group calling the meeting is trying to rush this through because during the winter there are very few members here as this is a resort area.

[Larry Cisar]

Any action taken at an improperly called meeting is null and void. The president does not have to do anything but may want to contact the membership and explain why it is an invalid meeting.

[dndhart]

Thanks Larry.

Could you be more specific regarding the second question.

Example if they hold the meeting and the president is ousted, what is the next step for the society?

cheers

[Chris Harrison]

Could you be more specific regarding the second question.

Example if they hold the meeting and the president is ousted, what is the next step for the society?

The President wouldn't have been validly outsted so the Society would not need to do anything about the President (unless they agree and wish to legitimately get rid of the President). However, the Society may wish to discipline those members who have gotten too big for their britches.

[Trina]

2 elected officers and 2 directors have called a meeting to remove the President, both from office and from the society. The group trying to remove the President does not like being challenged and held accountable which has resulted in a personality conflict.

A mailing took place of the notice for the meeting.

The President and a number of members know the meeting is invalid. The Society's Constitution and Bylaws have not been followed regarding the calling of the meeting. The Disciplinary proceedure in RONR is not being followed.The group is also basing their reasons on mis-information.

1) How do we inform the membership that the meeting is invalid? This group is likely to ignore this fact and try to hold the meeting.

2) If they do hold the meeting, what would the next step be for the President, Directors and members?

3) Does the President show up at the meeting or send out a notice that the meeting in invalid?

4) The group calling the meeting is trying to rush this through because during the winter there are very few members here as this is a resort area.

From a practical point of view, I would have some concern about this statement. Is it absolutely clear that the rules are not being followed in calling this meeting (i.e. if/when there is a later meeting to discuss the matter and clean up the mess, will any sensible person reading the bylaws agree that the meeting was improper)? Or does the invalidity of the meeting hinge on a subtle point of bylaws interpretation, which may lead to argument among the membership?

If the latter, I think there's more incentive for anyone who disagrees with what is being done to show up at the (invalid) meeting, and raise a challenge promptly.

Is the upcoming meeting (and I use the term loosely) being called as a membership meeting? If so, are enough members likely to attend to make quorum (since you say very few members are in town during the winter)?

[dndhart]

Some background,

Two elected members and two directors have called the meeting. Our bylaws state that it takes either 6 or 10, depending on the type of meeting.

They are very specific in what the meeting is about. It is to remove the person from President and then from membership from the Society.

The group that wants this done has been challenged by the President to follow the rules of the Constitutions and Bylaws. This group has spread false information. All of their claims can be refuted as not being true by documented proof.

If the President shows up at the invalid meeting, this small group will simply ignore anything that is said by either the President or other supporting members. There has been an email battle going on up to this point and the facts are being ignored.

This group makes up maybe 10% of the total membership, hence the problem with the timing of the meeting. They want hold the meeting when the summertime members are not here. If this meeting were in the summer months, they couldn't pull it off. The support for the President would be more than enough.

[Trina]

Some background,

Two elected members and two directors have called the meeting. Our bylaws state that it takes either 6 or 10, depending on the type of meeting.

They are very specific in what the meeting is about. It is to remove the person from President and then from membership from the Society.

The group that wants this done has been challenged by the President to follow the rules of the Constitutions and Bylaws. This group has spread false information. All of their claims can be refuted as not being true by documented proof.

If the President shows up at the invalid meeting, this small group will simply ignore anything that is said by either the President or other supporting members. There has been an email battle going on up to this point and the facts are being ignored.

This group makes up maybe 10% of the total membership, hence the problem with the timing of the meeting. They want hold the meeting when the summertime members are not here. If this meeting were in the summer months, they couldn't pull it off. The support for the President would be more than enough.

Any actions taken at an invalidly called meeting are null and void. Such actions fall into a category called 'continuing breaches' -- described on p. 251 of RONR 11th ed. -- and a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach. Conducting business at an invalid meeting runs afoul of p. 251(d) -- violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

'it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting...' (p. 263 ll. 18-22)

At a later (properly called) meeting, a point of order could be raised about the invalidity of the problem 'meeting', and a finding in favor of the point of order would recognize the fact that all business conducted at such a meeting is null and void. If elected officers have violated the constitution/bylaws (as it appears they may be doing), they could be disciplined.

It does seem odd that the wintertime members seem to be such a polarized faction among the total membership, and that they, as a group, don't care about complying with the bylaws...

[Josh Martin]

It does seem odd that the wintertime members seem to be such a polarized faction among the total membership, and that they, as a group, don't care about complying with the bylaws...

Pun intended?

My best guess would be that this is a society where some of the members are residents in the area and the others are not, which could explain this phenomenon. Otherwise, I suppose it's just a bizarre coincidence.

As for violating the Bylaws, we don't necessarily know from the facts provided that the members' respect for the Bylaws varies, since only one faction in this case benefits from violating the Bylaws.

[dndhart]

You don't know the half of it.

This "polorized group", has discussed in the past on how to limit the seasonal residents right to vote by either creating a seperate class of membership and/or by eliminating summer meetings.

They don't want "summer people" to come in and "wreck a good thing".

As for following RR's, a commonly heard comment is "why do we need them" or "I don't care about the rules, I won't follow them anyway".

There are other factors involved which aren't RR related but involve the Community.

[David A Foulkes]

You don't know the half of it.

This "polorized group", has discussed in the past on how to limit the seasonal residents right to vote by either creating a seperate class of membership and/or by eliminating summer meetings.

They don't want "summer people" to come in and "wreck a good thing".

As for following RR's, a commonly heard comment is "why do we need them" or "I don't care about the rules, I won't follow them anyway".

There are other factors involved which aren't RR related but involve the Community.

Your problems are not parliamentary, they are socio-anthro-geo-econo-political. There's only so far a Point of Order can reach.

[Josh Martin]

Your problems are not parliamentary, they are socio-anthro-geo-econo-political. There's only so far a Point of Order can reach.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the original poster's problems are not parliamentary. The organization clearly has parliamentary problems (which have been addressed in the previous responses), but I do think it is fair to say that the organization's current parliamentary problems are merely a symptom of the larger conflict in the organization, and certainly the resolution to that larger problem will have little to do with RONR.

[dndhart]

Thanks everyone for your input. It has been a great help.

Cheers