How to Remove a Member Who Has Served Illegitimately for 2+ years

[Guest Dusty]

I would like advice/instruction (clearly I am a novice) on how to proceed to remove a member who has served for a length of time and has been ineligible to serve until just recently.

This member had employment that specifically made him ineligible to be a board member. Although he is now eligible due to his loss of employment, I find the fact that he served for such a length of time, and in fact as president of the board--who should certainly know better--he should be removed.

Please advise me how to proceed. I expect the vice chair will not be supportive. I also do not believe a request for resignation will be fruitful. At the next board meeting, I would like to move to go into executive session and address this member.

Please instruct.

[Gary c Tesser]

1. I think you're saying that the person -- let's call him Barney, as an in-joke (you won't get it yet, Dusty, being a novice; but you might get boost by using the search function for this website: try "Wilma" and read the thread) can legitimately serve now; you're ont contesting that; but he should be removed as punishment for having been on the board illegitimately for a while. Is that true?

2. Let's start with reading FAQ #20, at www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#20 ... and RONR, 11th Ed., p. 444 - 445.

3. The easy part is, if he was ineligible to serve at the time he was elected, then the election is invalid: he is not a board member at all, and never was. He does not need to be removed -- rather, the organization needs to recognize that he's not on the board, by raising a point of order. (As he's the president, he will probably rule against the point of order -- so be prepared to appeal the ruling to the membership.)

[Trina]

I would like advice/instruction (clearly I am a novice) on how to proceed to remove a member who has served for a length of time and has been ineligible to serve until just recently.

This member had employment that specifically made him ineligible to be a board member. Although he is now eligible due to his loss of employment, I find the fact that he served for such a length of time, and in fact as president of the board--who should certainly know better--he should be removed.

Please advise me how to proceed. I expect the vice chair will not be supportive. I also do not believe a request for resignation will be fruitful. At the next board meeting, I would like to move to go into executive session and address this member.

Please instruct.

You may want to look at this earlier thread, focusing on the posts by Mr. Honemann, particularly post #24:

http://robertsrules....lable-breaches/

As Mr. Tesser said in his point #3, if the person was ineligible at the time he was declared elected, his election is simply null and void, regardless of anything that may have happened since then to put him into compliance with the bylaws at present.

However, if you raise a point of order to this effect, you will still need majority vote on your side in order to prevail. Also, presuming this person was 'elected' to the board by the general membership of the organization, it is that same body that would have to make a decision on the 'null-and-voidness' of the election. I mention this since you propose to do something "at the next board meeting" -- it is unlikely that the board can do anything about the situation.

[Guest Dusty]

To answer Mr. Tesser:

I want this member removed because his membership via his employment (he intends to seek work in the same/similar field immediately) is in direction violation of the bylaws and is in direct conflict with the intent of the board. This member, the chair, compromises the board. A major conflict of interest.

The members that voted this chair in don't appear to be on the board at this time--or at least the majority have turned over. The three members that remain, two did not know about this member's employment/conflict/violation of the bylaws--and I expect they care very much; and the third doesn't appear to care one way or the other (a problem member to deal with at another time).

I want craft my steps so that I handle this properly. Obviously I'll be putting myself "out there".

I have a few more questions, but I want to re-read the referenced material first.

Thank you for your assistance.

[JohnR]

I want this member removed because his membership via his employment (he intends to seek work in the same/similar field immediately) is in direction violation of the bylaws and is in direct conflict with the intent of the board. This member, the chair, compromises the board. A major conflict of interest.

Violation of the bylaws is your only ground for a parliamentary action. If the member was not qualified at the time he was elected, a Point of Order (followed potentially by an Appeal) is the appropriate move. If successful, the office will stand vacant with an incomplete election.

Neither the intent of the board nor conflict of interest can be used to remove an officer without due process, unless your bylaws provide that the term of office is such-and-such "…or until a successor is elected." In that case, the body that elected this member may replace him at its pleasure.

[Guest Edgar]

Neither the intent of the board nor conflict of interest can be used to remove an officer without due process . . .

I find myself somewhat suspicious that the "ineligibility" mentioned in the first post may not be as rock-solid as it first appeared.

[Guest Dusty]

The member is ineligible per the bylaws (and the charter) which specifically addresses the manner in which one is employed due to the conflict of interest. This president was specifically employed in such a manner that violates the bylaws for the majority of his time on the board until recently. (This only became know when he mentioned he was seeking work in which he divulged enough of a hint about what he did, that it raised eyebrows--mine, specifically.)

The nature of the board is a "check" in the industry in which this man was employed. It is highly probably that this man's employer requested he get on the board. There is another board that allows employees from this industry--and those employers ensure they have board representation.

In my view, and per the intent of this board via its charter and mission, this is egregious.

[Trina]

The member is ineligible per the bylaws (and the charter) which specifically addresses the manner in which one is employed due to the conflict of interest. This president was specifically employed in such a manner that violates the bylaws for the majority of his time on the board until recently. (This only became know when he mentioned he was seeking work in which he divulged enough of a hint about what he did, that it raised eyebrows--mine, specifically.)

...

Does this mean that his eligibility status as of the time he was elected isn't really known? Or, at least, that it can't be easily documented?

[sMargaret]

If employment status is that important to the assembly, then there should be a process to confirm employment as part of the process of running for office - change the bylaws, if it is that fundamental an issue.

[Guest Dusty]

Does this mean that his eligibility status as of the time he was elected isn't really known? Or, at least, that it can't be easily documented?

If employment status is that important to the assembly, then there should be a process to confirm employment as part of the process of running for office - change the bylaws, if it is that fundamental an issue.

Does this mean that his eligibility status as of the time he was elected isn't really known? Or, at least, that it can't be easily documented?

It is known now. It is documented.

What I do not know, is who knew the "member's" employment status at the time of appointment, or how this member slipped through the system. It is neither here nor there as this member did slip through and must be now dispatched as a member.

If employment status is that important to the assembly, then there should be a process to confirm employment as part of the process of running for office - change the bylaws, if it is that fundamental an issue.

There is a process. It is addressed in the bylaws. For some reason, the process and bylaws were not adhered to at the time. The issue now, the issue which I brought forth to this forum, is how now to best address this "member" and remove the member from the society.

[YFaure]

I sense that there seems to be a personal conflict going on here between Dusty and this Chair. (But that's my own personal opinion) Judging by the tone and determination of having the Chair removed, personal feelings will only make matters worse. The best way to go about this is diplomatically and with reason.

3. The easy part is, if he was ineligible to serve at the time he was elected, then the election is invalid: he is not a board member at all, and never was. He does not need to be removed -- rather, the organization needs to recognize that he's not on the board, by raising a point of order. (As he's the president, he will probably rule against the point of order -- so be prepared to appeal the ruling to the membership.)

As Gary had said, perhaps the best way of approaching this issue is by raising a point of order. Present your findings to the Board in a well organized manner and I'm sure they will come to see and understand your concern and how your findings conflict with the bylaws. Just be sure not to address the Board, especially the Chair, with an agitated tone and do not berate anyone while presenting your case. I've had my share of experiences as Chairman where members would yell at each other and disrupt the meeting. As I've learned, The louder you speak doesn't mean that your point gets across better. It just makes the one screaming look silly.

[Guest Dusty]

@YFaure~

Thanks for jumping in, but:

1) You misread the question; thus your response is negated;

2) You inferred a "feeling" or some other personal motive by "sensing" which are both a) inaccurate; and even if they were accurate--which they are not--have absolutely nothing to do with the facts presented with the question;

3) The helpful responses, notably Mr. Tesser's are satisfying; and,

4) Perhaps your familiarity with yelling at board meetings and agitated addresses to the Chair is what drives your inferences, but that is not an issue in our meetings, nor an issue raised in my OP.

Finally, YFaure, I wish you the best in gaining better control on the behaviour and outbursts you seem to experience in your meetings. I'm sure that makes for sour lemonade.

@Mr. Tesser~

Thank you again for the dialogue and your thoughtful and helpful replies.