Removing a Chair from a Special Committee

[Guest Shannon]

Our organization created a Special Committee 'with powers' to oversee planning and implementing an event taking place in April 2013. There were originally four co-chairs, one of which took on the roll of treasurer as well, and opened a bank account for that committee. The president had the membership vote them is as a slate of candidates. The membership did so.

One of the co-chairs has had many informal complains (members talking to the president and other EB members after meetings and on the phone) about the way this member has treated other members, but no formal disciplinary action has been taken. The EB had talked to this member and tried to resolve hurt feelings and 'mis-communications'. The issues persisted.

An informal meeting was called by the Special Committee and these issues were discussed. The issues persisted.

One of the Co-Chairs resigned. The general membership voted to accept the resignation. The Special Committee moved to retract the number of their committee co-chairs from four to three, because they were elected as a slate of four. The motion passed. The issues persisted.

The EB is of the belief that the Special Committee may be unable to fulfill their duties due to the lack of participation shown by the membership - seemingly due to the abrasive personality of a single co-chair. Several members have told the EB that they want to help, but won't because they cannot work with this person.

We have asked for a peaceable resignation. The co-chair refused.

The EB then voted at a scheduled EB to remove the co-chair from that position. We notified the member in writing of our actions. The reply that we have no right to remove them from their position and a demand to have all the issues presented at a general membership meeting where the member will be able to defend themselve. Also, we were reminded that they had been voted in as a slate - implying that we would have to remove the other members as well.

Even if removed from the co-chair position, they are still a member of the club and would be allowed to speak at the next meeting, which is in two weeks.

Advice, please.

1 - Is the EB within their rights to remove a disruptive member, even if they were elected to a special committee? (Page references would be greatly appreciated.)

2 - Is it within the co-chairs rights to demand a trial before being removed?

3 - Do we have to remove the entire slate of candidates if we remove one?

Any other advice would be appreciated...

[J. J.]

Start over. RONR frowns on co-chairs.

Discharge the committee motion and let the assembly reappoint a committee with one chair.

The motion to discharge requires a majority with notice, a 2/3 vote, or a majority of the entire membership.

[Guest Edgar]

The president had the membership vote them is as a slate of candidates. The membership did so.

Start over. RONR frowns on co-chairs.

Let alone four of them!

Not to mention the whole "slate" nonsense.

It might be time for a new president as well.

[Sean Hunt]

1 - Is the EB within their rights to remove a disruptive member, even if they were elected to a special committee? (Page references would be greatly appreciated.)

Probably not, and certainly not if your bylaws contain text indicating that the EB cannot make decisions that conflict with the membership. In any case, this sounds like it probably should be handled by the general membership since if the EB attempts to remove them unilaterally, the matter will be brought to the general membership.

2 - Is it within the co-chairs rights to demand a trial before being removed?

No. See RONR 11th ed., p. 497, ll. 1-14.

3 - Do we have to remove the entire slate of candidates if we remove one?

Absolutely not. The decision appointing the committee can be amended by striking the name of the co-chair who is causing an issue (and possibly making consequential amendments), using the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. See RONR 11th ed., p. 305, ll. 12-14.

Any other advice would be appreciated...

The imugned co-chair may disagree with rulings made by the chair of the membership meeting (such as to the validity of a motion to remove only him/her), so the chair should probably inform the members of their rights and the correct procedure for challenging the chair's opinion: first, the member raises a Point of Order on the matter that they believe is being handled incorrectly, the chair rules, and then the member makes an Appeal, which (if seconded), is debated and then decided by majority vote. The chair should definitely review the relevant sections before the meeting, and ideally the co-chair would as well, but that may be a long shot. The chair should inform the members before any controversy as to procedure arises so that it is generally understood how to challenge a ruling.

For future advice, I would recommend first to not elect co-chairs. Simply elect a committee with a single chair. The role of the chair of a committee is simply an organizational one, to call it to order and to preside over meetings. Any actual organization of an event should be done by the committee as a whole, and I would imagine that at least some of the friction is caused by various co-chairs all believeing that they ought to possess authority that is shared amongst them in a highly unclear fashion.

Similarly, I would avoid using the term 'slate' when electing a committee (or anyone, really). A decision to elect a number of members is a decision to elect a number of members. There are no slates, and if the membership is being presented with 'slates' of candidates and being required to vote on all candidates from one slate or all candidates from another, this procedure is incorrect (unless, of course, your bylaws or special rules of order indicate otherwise, but in that case you should probably make it so that they no longer say that. See RONR 11th ed. pp. 492-499 for various ways of electing committees.

[Gary Novosielski]

Hopefully you have learned your lesson(s) about appointing co-chairs. But it's worth noting that the chair of a committee has no decision making powers beyond those that arise in connection with chairing a committee meeting. Decisions are made by the committee, not the (co)chair.

iAnd this business of being elected "as a slate" is pure nonsense. Regardless of the procedural niceties (or in this case, errors) with respect to the election process, people hold office as individuals, their behavior is judged as individuals, and they are removed from or retained in office as individuals.