Recall Election Process

[Guest Jim Meineker]

An Officer or Board member may be removed for cause by a majority vote of the full Board. One or more Officers or Board members may be removed by a majority vote of the membership at a member meeting or special meeting by the holding of a recall election. Any voting member in good standing shall have the right to request a recall election be held by serving a written request for same upon the Board of Directors in person or by certified mail. The Officer or Board member to be recalled has the right to be present and to answer any charges at the time that the recall is held. The Board of Directors shall establish the rules and procedures governing the recall election process and submit same to the members at the next member meeting for approval and adoption by a majority of the voting members present.

 

We currently have a committee working on several proposed changes to our club by-laws.  The above passage in bold is a clause they wish to add.  It seems to me that inclusion of this could create chaos.  Any one person would have the ability to force a recall vote.  What club doesn't have at least one member with an ax to grind?  Also, how does the board have the right to remove a fellow board member that has been elected by the membership.  This whole thing just appears to me to be a very dangerous road to go down.  Please give me your insight and opinions

 

Thanks,

Jim Meineker

[jstackpo]

You are right, it is AWFUL.  (How's that for an "opinion"?)

 

The officer removal procedures in RONR (in Chapter XX) have been developed over many years and have stood the tests of time and fairness to all parties.  The thing for your association to do is remove all mention of "disciplinary action" (which includes removing/recalling officers, although RONR doesn't use the word "recall" nor define its meaning) from your bylaws.  Then the RONR rules will apply by default.  No need to invent your own (which you will probably get wrong - as you did - one way or another).

[Gary Novosielski]

JDS is (as usual) correct.

 

And btw, that's the worst (and worst written) language I've seen in a loooooong time.  You'd be  back in a week asking what "majority vote of the full board" means. and we'd have no idea.

 

If your members are uncomfortable having no reference to disciplinary procedures, include a line that says "Disciplinary procedures shall conform to the rules contained in the parliamentary authority."  and make sure your parliamentary authority is adopted using the language recommended in RONR.

[Richard Brown]

. . .The above passage in bold is a clause they wish to add.  It seems to me that inclusion of this could create chaos.   

 

Whew!!  You cannot imagine how relieved I was to read the two sentences above!!!  As I was reading what I thought were your existing bylaw provisions, I was thinking to myself, "Oh, Jeez, no.   Who on earth drafted that???"   Thank God it is only a proposed change that can hopefully be stopped! 

 

Needless to say, I agree with the others who have weighed in. 

 

Edited to add:  If you want to be able to remove officers and directors without having to go through a full blown disciplinary process, I do suggest that you insure that your bylaw provisions on terms of office include the words "or until their successors are elected".  See FAQ # 20 for the reasons why:  http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#20