Removal of the Chairman from Presiding at a Meeting

[DanielEHayes]

I attended a meeting yesterday for a committee on which I serve. Someone made a motion to remove the Chairman because he called the whole meeting to be out of order, but that's all a separate matter which I will likely post some other threads about. I told them to cite the rule by which they were attempting to remove the Chairman. After about 5 minutes they finally made their way to RONR(11th ed.) p.651 and one member read the first paragraph. They claimed they could remove the committee's chairman from presiding at the meeting with a Majority vote. I said it took a two-thirds vote to remove the Committee Chairman from presiding.
Also, the Vice Chairman was ruling on these matters claiming that as it was related to the Chairman it fell to him to rule on these points of Order. I argued the Chairman was STILL the presiding officer. The Chairman declared him out of order. He was ignored.
There were 20 properly credentialed Committee members in attendance at this meeting.  The vote was 13-7. I raised a point of order and said it failed because it was not a two-thirds vote. Someone chimed in from the gallery saying that two-thirds of 20 was 13.2(He needs a better calculator). I responded by saying 13.2 was greater than 13 which means the two-thirds threshold to remove the chairman was not reached.  I said that it required a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules to replace the chairman for the duration of the meeting. Another member of the committee chimed in claiming that we don't have any rules to suspend regarding the matter. I said our bylaws list RONR as our parliamentary authority.  The mob ended up declaring the Chairman removed and the vice Chairman then proceeded to chair the meeting.

What's the right answers here?

[Edgar Guest]

What's the right answers here?

 

The right answers don't count for much if the assembly is unwilling to follow the rules.

 

You could always take your case to a higher authority (e.g. the general membership).

[Transpower]

The correct motion to temporarily take away the chair's authority to preside is to Suspend the Rules, which takes a 2/3 vote, or 14 to 6 in your case (if everyone votes); 13 to 7 is less than 2/3.  So the original poster is correct, and the chair should not have been removed.

[Edgar Guest]

So the original poster is correct, and the chair should not have been removed.

 

But the chair was removed.

[Josh Martin]

I attended a meeting yesterday for a committee on which I serve. Someone made a motion to remove the Chairman because he called the whole meeting to be out of order, but that's all a separate matter which I will likely post some other threads about. I told them to cite the rule by which they were attempting to remove the Chairman. After about 5 minutes they finally made their way to RONR(11th ed.) p.651 and one member read the first paragraph. They claimed they could remove the committee's chairman from presiding at the meeting with a Majority vote. I said it took a two-thirds vote to remove the Committee Chairman from presiding.

Also, the Vice Chairman was ruling on these matters claiming that as it was related to the Chairman it fell to him to rule on these points of Order. I argued the Chairman was STILL the presiding officer. The Chairman declared him out of order. He was ignored.

There were 20 properly credentialed Committee members in attendance at this meeting.  The vote was 13-7. I raised a point of order and said it failed because it was not a two-thirds vote. Someone chimed in from the gallery saying that two-thirds of 20 was 13.2(He needs a better calculator). I responded by saying 13.2 was greater than 13 which means the two-thirds threshold to remove the chairman was not reached.  I said that it required a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules to replace the chairman for the duration of the meeting. Another member of the committee chimed in claiming that we don't have any rules to suspend regarding the matter. I said our bylaws list RONR as our parliamentary authority.  The mob ended up declaring the Chairman removed and the vice Chairman then proceeded to chair the meeting.

What's the right answers here?

 

It requires a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules and replace the regular presiding officer and a vote of 13-7 is not a two-thirds vote. The members are referring to pg. 651, which refers to removing a Chairman Pro Tempore. If they continue to the next page, they'll see that a two-thirds vote is required to remove the regular presiding officer from presiding for a meeting. I would note that these errors do not constitute a continuing breach, so they do not undermine the validity of the committee meeting or the business conducted - although the other errors which are hinted at (the chairman claimed that the meeting was "out of order") might be a bigger problem.

 

I agree with the Vice Chairman, however, that he should have been the one to rule on these issues, and should have presided over the motion. The chairman should have relinquished the chair until the matter was settled, since the motion referred only to the presiding officer not in common with other members. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 451.

 

Since this is a committee, perhaps the chair should report these events to the parent assembly, which can instruct the committee on proper procedure, and take action against those responsible if it feels this is warranted. Of course, this is a bit risky - if the parent assembly agrees with the committee's opinion of the chairman (setting aside the procedural defects), the chairman might find that his removal will become permanent. The appointing authority can permanently remove the chairman from his position by a majority vote with previous notice, a 2/3 vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership, provided the bylaws do not have a set term of office for this position. (The same rules apply for removing other members of the committee).

[DanielEHayes]

This committee operates more like a large board of directors and is the governing body of a  much larger organization but it is not a committee in the normal sense of the word. Currently the convention cycle during which the officers of the committee are elected is 4 years until adjournment of the next convention.  It's current meeting schedule of quarterly meetings were set for the duration of the term about a month after the last convention.

[Josh Martin]

This committee operates more like a large board of directors and is the governing body of a  much larger organization but it is not a committee in the normal sense of the word. Currently the convention cycle during which the officers of the committee are elected is 4 years until adjournment of the next convention.  It's current meeting schedule of quarterly meetings were set for the duration of the term about a month after the last convention.

 

I see. In that event, see FAQ #20 for information on permanent removal of the members of the "committee," but it doesn't change my other opinions on this subject.

[Richard Brown]

RONR is clear on pages 652 and 653 that it takes a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules and remove the regular chairman from presiding at a particular session (meeting).  See also Official Interpretation 2006-2 by the authorship team, but note that the citations in that official interpretation are to the 10^th edition.  The pertinent language from that official interpretation says, “it is indeed within the authority of the assembly, by a two-thirds vote, to suspend the rules so as to take away from the president the authority to preside during all or part of a given session.”   http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_2

 

As to whether there was a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules, RONR explains a two-thirds vote this way on page 401:

 

“A two-thirds vote—when the term is unqualified—means at least two thirds of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions, at a regular or properly called meeting.”  (Emphasis added).

 

RONR then gives four examples of a two-thirds vote as follows:

              •            If 30 votes are cast, a two-thirds vote is 20.

              •            If 31 votes are cast, a two-thirds vote is 21.

              •            If 32 votes are cast, a two-thirds vote is 22.

              •            If 33 votes are cast, a two-thirds vote is 22.

 

A vote of 13 to 7 vote with 20 members voting is not a two-thirds vote. 

 

You can calculate it the hard way or the easy way. 

 

The hard way is to do the math and find two-thirds of 20.  Using .66666 as the multiplier,  two-thirds of 20 is 13.33.  13 is clearly less than 13.33 so 13 it is NOT two-thirds.  You cannot have a part of a person, so all calculations must be rounded up, resulting in 14 yes votes needed to reach the two-thirds threshold to suspend the rules.  The rule is that there must be AT LEAST two-thirds.  Almost two-thirds won’t do.

 

The easy way is to just keep in mind that in order to have a two-thirds vote, the yes votes must be at least twice the no votes.  There were 7 no votes, so 14 yes votes would be necessary for a two-thirds vote.  13 yes votes are not sufficient.

 

See Frequently Asked Question No 5 for an explanation from the authorship team about how to handle fractions:  In a nutshell, you have to round up.  http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#5

 

As to whether the chairman should preside over the handling of the motion to remove him from presiding, rather than citing page 451 (which is also pertinent), I would cite page 652 lines 7-9 which state that “When such a motion is made and seconded, after stating the motion he must turn the chair over to another following the procedure described on page 395. . . .”