Removing an officer by force

[Guest Gina]

I was the treasurer for a PTO last year. I was elected to be president for this school year. I never did bookkeeping before and therefore fight know much about it. In our bylaws we were suppose to vote in a 3 member committee to go over the bookeeping and closed by August 1. I handed over the books to the new treasurer on June 30 like I was suppose to. There was never a committee chosen and in September me and the Vice President got into an argument over some of the mistakes she found when she decided on her own to go thru the bookeeping without forming a committee I did make some of the mistakes and she is trying to force me to resign as president. In our bylaws nothing covers this. Can she force me to resign

[Edgar Guest]

Can she force me to resign

 

No. Resignation is a voluntary act.

[Guest Guest]

She is threatening to do a full investigation if I don't resign. I told her to go ahead Can I call meeting of all board members to discuss this And can they hold a meeting asking the members to vote me out

[Edgar Guest]

She is threatening to do a full investigation if I don't resign. I told her to go ahead Can I call meeting of all board members to discuss this And can they hold a meeting asking the members to vote me out

 

You'll have to check your bylaws to see if you can call a (special) meeting.

 

You might also want to take a look at FAQ #20.

[Guest Gina]

Ok our bylaws just state no more than a two year term Thank you that was very helpful

[Gödel Fan]

If the OP just wants to call a meeting to discuss it, it doesn't matter what the bylaws say about special meetings, because such a thing wouldn't be a meeting, it would be a conversation.  The bylaw provisions for special meetings only matter if the OP intends to call a meeting where something is done.  

 

I'm not clear on why past bookkeeping mistakes make one a poor President, and I'm not sure on what charges they could present that would relate to the office of President, although they are free to try.  It would make more sense to me to remove a current treasurer for bookkeeping errors.

[Edgar Guest]

If the OP just wants to call a meeting . . . such a thing wouldn't be a meeting,

 

If you say so.

[DanielEHayes]

If you say so.

He did say so.  Edgar you know what he meant, but just to be a troll, you had to make a snide little remark. 

[George Mervosh]

He did say so.  Edgar you know what he meant, but just to be a troll, you had to make a snide little remark. 

 

Edgar might be skeptical regarding this:

 

 

If the OP just wants to call a meeting to discuss it, it doesn't matter what the bylaws say about special meetings, because such a thing wouldn't be a meeting, it would be a conversation.  The bylaw provisions for special meetings only matter if the OP intends to call a meeting where something is done. 

 

I'm certainly skeptical.

[Josh Martin]

Edgar might be skeptical regarding this:

...

I'm certainly skeptical.

What part are you both skeptical about? No rule in RONR prevents members from getting together to discuss things outside of a formal meeting, so long as no business is conducted.

[Edgar Guest]

What part are you both skeptical about? No rule in RONR prevents members from getting together to discuss things outside of a formal meeting, so long as no business is conducted.

 

I think referring to a gathering as a meeting and then stating that it's not a meeting is an unfortunate choice of words. Especially in a forum where the choice of words, even the placement of a comma, can make a significant difference.

 

The OP, the president, asked if she can call a meeting of all board members. I suppose one could argue that that's not necessarily a meeting of the board but, again, I think it's best to avoid the use of the word "meeting" on this forum unless what's being referred to is, you know, a meeting.

[George Mervosh]

I think referring to a gathering as a meeting and then stating that it's not a meeting is an unfortunate choice of words. Especially in a forum where the choice of words, even the placement of a comma, can make a significant difference.

 

The OP, the president, asked if she can call a meeting of all board members. I suppose one could argue that that's not necessarily a meeting of the board but, again, I think it's best to avoid the use of the word "meeting" on this forum unless what's being referred to is, you know, a meeting.

 

And while they might not adopt motions per se, some strategy, agreement, or something is going to take place, or why else have it, whatever you want to call it?

[Gödel Fan]

Yes, I agree it is an unfortunate choice of words to refer to things that aren't meetings as meetings.  That is the nature of answering questions from people who don't spend their time doing this stuff, as we do.  It's also unfortunate that some organizations have members who are not members, that an organization apparently has a nominating committee charged with running elections, etc.  A person who doesn't spend their time thinking about parliamentary procedure is apt to call something a meeting that is not, in fact, a meeting.  (I'd point out that we frequently make incorrect use of the word meeting ourselves, such as "if a motion is postponed indefinitely, it can be renewed at the next meeting.")  The post specifically said "to discuss this."  I should probably have used scare quotes, or started with an introduction explaining why getting a group of people together to discuss something is not a meeting.  Mea culpa.

 

Regarding some strategy, agreement, or something - I'm not sure I see why this is important.  We often come into capital-m Meetings with a strategy in place.  If I go out to dinner with the entire board, we informally talk about things, then we come to the meeting prepared to make a motion, so what?  Was our dinner a meeting because we discussed strategy and reached an agreement?  As far as I can tell, if no motions are adopted, no business is conducted.  We can reach a strategic agreement, then come to the Meeting and find that one of us is more strategic than the rest, and does something different than we agreed upon.  If you want to get a group together to discuss a problem, without taking any action, even if you hope to reach an agreement or talk about strategy, you can do so without a bylaw provision for special meetings (aside from, as Daniel pointed out to me, certain public bodies.)

[Josh Martin]

And while they might not adopt motions per se, some strategy, agreement, or something is going to take place, or why else have it, whatever you want to call it?

And? I see no parliamentary issue with this. There may be a legal issue, depending on the type of assembly, but so far as RONR is concerned, plotting and scheming, or even informal agreements, are permitted outside of a meeting, so long as the actual motion/action is adopted at a proper meeting with a quorum present.

[Shmuel Gerber]

She is threatening to do a full investigation if I don't resign. I told her to go ahead Can I call meeting of all board members to discuss this And can they hold a meeting asking the members to vote me out

 

If the OP just wants to call a meeting to discuss it, it doesn't matter what the bylaws say about special meetings, because such a thing wouldn't be a meeting, it would be a conversation.  The bylaw provisions for special meetings only matter if the OP intends to call a meeting where something is done. 

 

And while they might not adopt motions per se, some strategy, agreement, or something is going to take place, or why else have it, whatever you want to call it?

 

And? I see no parliamentary issue with this. There may be a legal issue, depending on the type of assembly, but so far as RONR is concerned, plotting and scheming, or even informal agreements, are permitted outside of a meeting, so long as the actual motion/action is adopted at a proper meeting with a quorum present.

 

Part of the original poster's question was "Can I call meeting of all board members to discuss this"?

 

It seems that two interpretations of this question are being suggested:

 

1. As president, do I have the authority to call a meeting of the board to work on resolving these issues?

2. Can I, as a private citizen and irrespective of my role in this organization, send a request to all the people who happen to serve on the board of this organization, asking them to do me a favor and gather 'round to discuss amongst ourselves the issues involved, with the understanding that not only will we not attempt to actually resolve anything, but that any attempt to do so will be of no effect whatsoever, as far as the organization is concerned.

 

Does anyone here seriously think that #2 is what the question was?

[Gödel Fan]

No, I don't believe 2 is correct.  The average person is blissfully unaware of things like "minutes are what was done, not what was said."  We had a question posted not long ago about a "motion to discuss" something.  The average person believes something like "meetings are held to discuss things."  I was simply pointing out that, in fact, if the OP just wants to discuss things with the board (what the question said) a meeting is not needed.  

[Shmuel Gerber]

No, I don't believe 2 is correct.  The average person is blissfully unaware of things like "minutes are what was done, not what was said."  We had a question posted not long ago about a "motion to discuss" something.  The average person believes something like "meetings are held to discuss things."  I was simply pointing out that, in fact, if the OP just wants to discuss things with the board (what the question said) a meeting is not needed.  

 

I see. So you don't think that Guest_Gina was actually asking about a voluntary, non-board-meeting meeting of board members, and you agree that "it is an unfortunate choice of words to refer to things that aren't meetings as meetings," but you chose to bring up the topic, and to do so in those confusing terms, because "that is the nature of answering questions from people who don't spend their time doing this stuff" and because of what "the average person believes."

 

I'm trying to think of how the word "dumb" might appropriately be applied to creating such a diversion from the original topic -- and actually there might an element of genius involved if you were able to drag the estimable/inestimable Mr. Martin along for the ride -- but I'm afraid of the reaction that might be engendered, and I don't enjoy being called any nasty names.  

[Gödel Fan]

No name-calling, and no angry departure either (although it remains to be seen if the latter will be considered a reassurance or a nuisance).  I am used to disagreement, although more commonly it comes from trying to convince chairs not to do things that violate their own bylaws or RONR (when adopted), not from pointing out that people who don't spend a lot of time with RONR will call non-meetings meetings and the like.  I just do not agree it is dumb to point out that discussing a topic doesn't require a capital-M Meeting, and may be done whether authorized in the bylaws or not, so long as no action is taken.  I would have added that, if action is to be taken, it will need authorization in the bylaws, but a previous post had already said that.  

[RobertJ]

State law may define what is a meeting and restrict communication between a quorum of members who discuss an "Item of business" in person or via email.  "Chain meetings" (A talks to B, B talks to C, C talks to D, etc.) and "Wheel and Spoke meetings" (A talks to B, A talks to C, A talks to D, etc.) may also be disallowed by State law.  This is the way it is in California and other states for Homeowners Associations and Governmental Bodies.