Ken_Cheel Posted February 12, 2012 at 11:49 PM Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 at 11:49 PM Page 497 is very clear on how to remove a chairman who has been appointed for "two years". However our Constitution states the Constitution and Regulations are subject to the Laws of Canada and Alberta. Does this mean the Labour laws of the Federal and Provincial governments have a greater sway then RR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted February 13, 2012 at 12:03 AM Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 at 12:03 AM A lawyer will be able to better explain this. RONR deals with parliamentary procedure. However, for a voluntary position, especially of position mentioned in the By-laws (i.e. about officers and directors) will likely not be covered by legislation. However, a paid employee would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted February 13, 2012 at 12:03 AM Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 at 12:03 AM Page 497 is very clear on how to remove a chairman who has been appointed for "two years". However our Constitution states the Constitution and Regulations are subject to the Laws of Canada and Alberta. Does this mean the Labour laws of the Federal and Provincial governments have a greater sway then RR.Any applicable PROCEDURAL rules found in the law will supersede RONR. However, it appears that you may not be asking about procedural rules. If you're asking a legal question, an attorney should be consulted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken_Cheel Posted February 13, 2012 at 12:20 AM Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 at 12:20 AM What I'm trying to do is find were the line should be drawn. If the president appoints a chairman for "two years" and then discovers he can't work with that person. According to page 497 he must be removed by the rules on page 654. Another part of our Constitution states "subject too" I'm just trying to make sure I have the correct precedent of procedure. So what I'm reading from Tim would be the "subject too" would take precident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted February 13, 2012 at 12:29 AM Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 at 12:29 AM What I'm trying to do is find were the line should be drawn. If the president appoints a chairman for "two years" and then discovers he can't work with that person. According to page 497 he must be removed by the rules on page 654. Another part of our Constitution states "subject too" I'm just trying to make sure I have the correct precedent of procedure. So what I'm reading from Tim would be the "subject too" would take precident.Generally, the power to appoint a committee carries with it the power to remove or replace. If your bylaws provide otherwise, the bylaws would supersede RONR. The details of your specific case are not clear. I just suspect that you may be looking in the wrong place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted February 13, 2012 at 03:27 AM Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 at 03:27 AM I concur with Tim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 13, 2012 at 05:54 AM Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 at 05:54 AM ... If the president appoints a chairman for "two years" Ken, I don't understand you here. 1. DO the bylaws define the term of office of the committee chairman?-- OR --2. WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT DO??? You write, "If the president appoints a chairman for "two years"" ... but please, DOES the president appoint the committee members, or not? If he does, did he actually say he was appointing them (especially the committee chairman) for two years, or didn't he? (If he did, it might not be binding; but if he didn't, that would be easier.)3. Mind what Tim Wynn told you. Yes, the laws THAT APPLY to your organization have precedence over RONR. You need to find out whether they apply, and if they do apply, what they require of you.... According to page 497 he must be removed by the rules on page 654. 4. No, no. Page 654 applies ONLY if your bylaws (or constitution) define the committee members' terms of office that way. So, is that what the constitution or bylaws say about the terms? Another part of our Constitution states "subject too" I'm just trying to make sure I have the correct precedent of procedure. So what I'm reading from Tim would be the "subject too" would take precident.Yes, laws -- the laws that apply -- supersede the bylaws. And the bylaws, in turn, supersede RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken_Cheel Posted February 13, 2012 at 08:20 PM Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 at 08:20 PM The proper wording in the regulations is: "two (2)[members] to be appointed each year for a three (3) year term." The [members] is my addition for clarity. Please excuse my mistake. it is a three year term and not two as I origainally stated. However it doesn't change anything. Yes, the President appoints the committee. So my understanding is the president can remove the chairman as per page 497 and 654 unless there are laws which apply and they would take precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 13, 2012 at 11:58 PM Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 at 11:58 PM However, for a voluntary position, especially of position mentioned in the By-laws (i.e. about officers and directors) will likely not be covered by legislation.I'm not so sure about that (at least for incorporated societies).So my understanding is the president can remove the chairman as per page 497 and 654 unless there are laws which apply and they would take precedent.Well, in any event, applicable procedural laws do take precedence over your Bylaws and RONR. I'm not sure you're reading RONR, correctly, though. Based on what I read on pgs. 497 and 654, removing a committee member who has been appointed to a fixed term (with no "or until his successor is elected" clause) requires formal disciplinary procedures, so they could not simply be removed by the President. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 497, lines 1-6; pg. 654, lines 4-13) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.