Guest Tammie Singer Posted September 27, 2013 at 04:14 AM Report Share Posted September 27, 2013 at 04:14 AM I am on the board of a small dog club. One of our directors has just been diagnosed with Stage 4 brain cancer. Her term of office is not up for another 6 months. She slips in and out of lucidity and mental competency. She still wants to participate on the board, and some members object to removing her from the board, feeling it would be cruel. Although I am heartbroken for her, I object to a board member voting on motions when she is not mentally competent. Can anyone direct me to where, if anywhere, this kind of issue is addressed in Robert's Rules: What to do with a board member who becomes mentally incapacitated while in office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted September 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM Report Share Posted September 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM I agree that removing her from the Board is a less than optimal way to handle the situation. Unfortunately, unless you all can convince her to resign (or there is something in the bylaws addressing the situation) your only options are to remove her from office or wait until her term expires or the vacancy is created another way . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted September 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM Report Share Posted September 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM If the United States can survive Presidents with diminished mental capacity (e.g. Wilson and Reagan), I'm sure a small dog club can survive the next six months with one board member similarly challenged. By the way, is it the club that's small . . . or the dogs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tammie Singer Posted September 27, 2013 at 06:12 PM Report Share Posted September 27, 2013 at 06:12 PM Actually, both the club and the dogs are small! So I take it that the answer is that Robert's Rules does not specifically address the issue of board members becoming mentally incapacitated? That kind of surprises me, since I would imagine that that situation must happen not infrequently, especially on boards that have older board members. Thanks for your replies :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted September 27, 2013 at 06:27 PM Report Share Posted September 27, 2013 at 06:27 PM So I take it that the answer is that Robert's Rules does not specifically address the issue of board members becoming mentally incapacitated? Correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogShowsLover Posted September 27, 2013 at 06:36 PM Report Share Posted September 27, 2013 at 06:36 PM Darn! Okay. Thanks for the help, guys :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted September 27, 2013 at 10:37 PM Report Share Posted September 27, 2013 at 10:37 PM So I take it that the answer is that Robert's Rules does not specifically address the issue of board members becoming mentally incapacitated? No it doesn't per se. If RONR was going to say something about mental incapacity the questions our esteemed Authorship Team would have to wrangle with are to what level does the impairment have to rise before it is considered an "incapacity" and who is to make such a determination? What is to prevent someone from being deemed to have an "incapacity" just because he or she doesn't "toe the company line?" That is just a very few of the possible considerations (and the Wrathful One probably would desire to spend his time fishing rather than playing Dr. Phil ). However, the option to remove someone who may have cognitive issues from office still exists and can be used if there is a belief that their ability to perform their duties are impaired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted September 28, 2013 at 05:04 AM Report Share Posted September 28, 2013 at 05:04 AM And in many cases, it would be up to the organization to decide what would constitute a 'diminished mental capacity', so it is better for each organization to determine this. In this situation, unless the lady's vote tends to have an impact on the outcome of a motion, or is likely to on several occasions, one vote does not necessarily have an impact on the outcome of a motion and as such is not necessarily a difficult issue for six months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogShowsLover Posted October 1, 2013 at 05:51 AM Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 at 05:51 AM No it doesn't per se. If RONR was going to say something about mental incapacity the questions our esteemed Authorship Team would have to wrangle with are to what level does the impairment have to rise before it is considered an "incapacity" and who is to make such a determination? What is to prevent someone from being deemed to have an "incapacity" just because he or she doesn't "toe the company line?" That is just a very few of the possible considerations (and the Wrathful One probably would desire to spend his time fishing rather than playing Dr. Phil ). However, the option to remove someone who may have cognitive issues from office still exists and can be used if there is a belief that their ability to perform their duties are impaired. Yeah, that definitely makes sense. It can be a slippery slope, trying to make that determination. This board member is speaking and writing in nonsensical sentences as would a person who had just had a stroke, so her diminished mental capacity is not really in question. But her vote would make a difference on a small board, so I would object to her voting while she's in this mental state. Our board meeting is tomorrow, and her husband may bring her, so it could get interesting. "You said that the option to remove someone who may have cognitive issues from office still exists." How exactly do we do that correctly in accordance with Robert's Rules, and can you point me to the pages that address that process? Thanks for all your help!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 1, 2013 at 11:31 AM Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 at 11:31 AM I agree that removing her from the Board is a less than optimal way to handle the situation. Unfortunately, unless you all can convince her to resign (or there is something in the bylaws addressing the situation) your only options are to remove her from office or wait until her term expires or the vacancy is created another way .Wouldn't the membership need to remove her rather than the board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted October 1, 2013 at 11:33 AM Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 at 11:33 AM "You said that the option to remove someone who may have cognitive issues from office still exists." How exactly do we do that correctly in accordance with Robert's Rules, and can you point me to the pages that address that process? It would be the same process as you would take to remove someone from office which should be located in your bylaws (see FAQ #20 for details). If they are silent on the issue then you will have to conduct a very long and drawn out process including the appointing of an investigating committee, the preferring of charges, and holding a trial (all which would be done by the General Membership) which is discussed on RONR pp. 654-668. But be sure to check FAQ #20 because even if the bylaws are silent on discipline depending on how the term of office is defined it might be possible to adopt a motion removing her from office without having to resort to a full trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 1, 2013 at 03:17 PM Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 at 03:17 PM Wouldn't the membership need to remove her rather than the board? Assuming the membership elected the officer in question, yes, unless the bylaws provide otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.