Removal of Officers elected by mail

[J. J.]

An assembly meets twice a year.  It elects members of the board of directs (directors) by mail ballot "for a term of 4 years or until their successors are elected."  It provides that the term of office shall start on August 1.

 

 

The bylaws also provide that officers will be elected by mail ballot, and provide dates for the ballots being sent out and a date by which they must be returned.  The ballot is sent to all members.

 

At the October meet, a member moves to rescind the election of Director #1.  While 2/3 of the membership present will vote to rescind that election, does the motion require a mail ballot?

 

 

[Josh Martin]

At the October meet, a member moves to rescind the election of Director #1.  While 2/3 of the membership present will vote to rescind that election, does the motion require a mail ballot?

 

Firstly, I'll raise one nitpicky point (mainly because I've also been corrected on this before) - the member should move to remove Director #1, not to rescind his election. An election may not be rescinded, and RONR does not use the term "rescind" for the motion you're discussing. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 308, lines 24-30; pg. 653, line 27 - pg. 654, line 3.

 

As for the main question, assuming that the bylaws are otherwise silent on this subject, a mail ballot (or a ballot at all, for that matter) is not required. The method of election does not control the method of removal.

[George Mervosh]

The method of election does not control the method of removal.

 

We have a real life example of this asked today.  http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/20339-secretary-casting-vote-in-uncontested-election/#entry108090   Certainly it's not going to take the same method to remove Director #1

[J. J.]

We have a real life example of this asked today.  http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/20339-secretary-casting-vote-in-uncontested-election/#entry108090   Certainly it's not going to take the same method to remove Director #1

 

 

It isn't the method as much as it is the group taking the action.  I am wondering if because these members, which includes people not at the meeting, may vote to chose the directors, would that create an absentee right?   Does the requirement, in this case, for a 2/3 vote take care of any absentee right?  (Notice and/or a MEM vote would.)

 

It is why I would use the analogy of the motion to rescind.

[George Mervosh]

It isn't the method as much as it is the group taking the action.  I am wondering if because these members, which includes people not at the meeting, may vote to chose the directors, would that create an absentee right?   Does the requirement, in this case, for a 2/3 vote take care of any absentee right?  (Notice and/or a MEM vote would.)

 

It is why I would use the analogy of the motion to rescind.

 

In my view the method you mention for taking this vote to elect, creates absolutely no absentee rights on a motion to remove the director.  The conduct of the election and the method of removal are two unrelated actions. 

[J. J.]

In my view the method you mention for taking this vote to elect, creates absolutely no absentee rights on a motion to remove the director.  The conduct of the election and the method of removal are two unrelated actions. 

 

I'd find the last line persuasive. 

[Gary c Tesser]

Don't the members who were present for the election by mail get any consideration?

[George Mervosh]

Don't the members who were present for the election by mail get any consideration?

 

No.  The motion to remove Director 1 doesn't even require previous notice when the bylaw language for the term of office is what J.J. says it is.

 

The "or" language means  "Officers may be removed from office at the pleasure of the membership as provided in the parliamentary authority." p.574, second bullet.

 

This motion can be made at any regular meeting, regardless of who is there.  Also see pp. 653-54.

[Bruce Lages]

Don't the members who were present for the election by mail get any consideration?

 

What kind of consideration are you thinking of, Gary?

[J. J.]

Don't the members who were present for the election by mail get any consideration?

 

 

That was one question that I have.  The group that choses the office is not the members assembled at a quorate meeting.  It is, the membership that choses to mail in a ballot.  It would follow that only that group is empowered to deal with election of officers. 

 

Now, I see two problems with the logic here:

 

1.  If the bylaws said "and until," how do you conduct a trial by mail?    Using the same logic, it would have to be, which seems difficult.

 

2.  Is the ability to elect different than the ability to remove? 

[Josh Martin]

That was one question that I have.  The group that choses the office is not the members assembled at a quorate meeting.  It is, the membership that choses to mail in a ballot.  It would follow that only that group is empowered to deal with election of officers. 

 

J. J., the group that elected the officers is the general membership. It's the same group whether they vote in person or by mail.

 

2.  Is the ability to elect different than the ability to remove? 

 

Yes.

[J. J.]

J. J., the group that elected the officers is the general membership. It's the same group whether they vote in person or by mail.

 

 

I do not necessarily agree with the first part.  The body that would normally elect is the general membership that is in attendance while the polls are open.  That is not the group that elects in this case.

 

To use an example, the rules could not be suspended to require the election to be conducted solely at the meeting.  That would violate absentee rights.

 

The second part, is the ability to elect different than the ability to remove, is the part I would find persuasive.

[George Mervosh]

The second part, is the ability to elect different than the ability to remove, is the part I would find persuasive.

 

You should.  I don't think it matters whether the term of office contains an "or", or an "and, or is a fixed term.  The disciplinary procedures and methods of removal from office stand alone, unless the governing documents tie them together with the procedures for election to office, and I just don't see that being the case in your scenario.

[Guest Nancy N.]

What kind of consideration are you thinking of, Gary?

That was mostly a joke (as in "present ... by mail," post 4; sorry, George, post 8), reflecting the kind of reasoning that, say, insists that since rescinding something requires a greater threshold than what adopting the thing took, anything that was adopted by a unanimous vote can only be rescinded by a unanimous vote of a larger number of members. Or, if the election of the officer had included the archaic step of the chair's closing nominations by calling it three times, then the removal of the officer would need to include calling for voting on it at least four times. If I had any marijuana I could come up with more.

In a serious vein, I'm given pause by ideas like JJ's "To use an example, the rules could not be suspended to require the election to be conducted solely at the meeting. That would violate absentee rights," post 12.

[J. J.]

In a serious vein, I'm given pause by ideas like JJ's "To use an example, the rules could not be suspended to require the election to be conducted solely at the meeting. That would violate absentee rights," post 12.

 

Interestingly, that subject came up today.  I would find a rule requiring certain items be adopted by some form of absentee voting to create an absentee right.

 

The idea, however, that removal from office is different than the election to office is one that I can understand and agree with.