Guest Lyn Spinella Posted May 30, 2014 at 12:55 PM Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 at 12:55 PM Our BOD has an executive session planned to discuss a large money request from our President. We are a tax exempt organization and the President hasn't accepted any remuneration during his 40 year tenure even though the bylaws provide for a per diem payment. Now that he is retiring, he is requesting money. The President's son is on the board. We are expecting that he will recuse himself from the meeting. We would prefer that this board member not be present due to the conflict of interest. If he recuses himself does that also mean that he must leave the room during this discussion or is he allowed to stay and listen to what is discussed? I'm sure it will certainly put a damper on the discussion as well as prevent other members from speaking their minds. It could even affect the voting. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted May 30, 2014 at 01:09 PM Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 at 01:09 PM He has the right to be present and participate in any debate, and although he should not vote on the matter, his right to vote on it cannot be taken away. See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 30, 2014 at 01:19 PM Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 at 01:19 PM And see p. 407. And I am sure you will be checking with a lawyer (and a tax guy [or lady] ) about possible restrictions due to your tax status and possible consequences to you or your President when the money changes hands. That sort of thing is not part of RONR's world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted May 30, 2014 at 01:27 PM Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 at 01:27 PM If the son decides to abstain from voting, he can do so, but RONR only says that he shouldn't if he has "a direct personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members." The fact that it is his father who is asking for money would seem to be more of an indirect personal or pecuniary interest, if it is even that. As for people leaving the room when things like this are discussed, I figure if people would say something behind someone's back that they wouldn't say to their face, they ought not say it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elaine Jeter Posted June 4, 2014 at 05:12 PM Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 at 05:12 PM Recusal is the best way to allow the board to make a decision that they feel is the right decision for the entire organization. And the person who has recused him/herself should gracefully leave the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted June 4, 2014 at 05:20 PM Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 at 05:20 PM Recusal is the best way to allow the board to make a decision that they feel is the right decision for the entire organization. And the person who has recused him/herself should gracefully leave the room.Nothing in RONR, however, supports that point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted June 4, 2014 at 06:14 PM Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 at 06:14 PM Recusal is the best way to allow the board to make a decision that they feel is the right decision for the entire organization. And the person who has recused him/herself should gracefully leave the room. That is easy for the part of the board that stays in the room to say, but the part of the board that leaves the room may not agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted June 4, 2014 at 07:35 PM Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 at 07:35 PM As for people leaving the room when things like this are discussed, I figure if people would say something behind someone's back that they wouldn't say to their face, they ought not say it at all. Timothy, that's not the point about leaving the room. The point is to stop the person from entering into debate and/or using other non-verbal communication to try and influence the decision. Of course, RONR does not require this at all. Also, check the By-laws and any applicable statute to make sure that the President and/or his son are allowed to be in the room, etc. Some organizations, or different statute, will indicate something about this more than RONR will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted June 4, 2014 at 08:20 PM Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 at 08:20 PM Timothy, that's not the point about leaving the room. The point is to stop the person from entering into debate and/or using other non-verbal communication to try and influence the decision. Of course, RONR does not require this at all. If you were to change that from "stop the person from" to "avoid the temptation of", I think we would be in agreement. "Stop the person" implies that the assembly is preventing the person from speaking, as if it is somehow in the best interest of the assembly for him to leave the room (which is what the original post implied). The reason a person would willingly recuse himself is that a conflict of interest could make it difficult for him in other areas of his life if he is involved in the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted June 4, 2014 at 08:42 PM Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 at 08:42 PM Recusal is the best way . . . There is no such thing as "recusal" in RONR-Land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.