Removing the Right to Remove

[grayduck]

Can an assembly vote on a motion to remove the section in their constitution that allows for removing an Executive from office? 

 

I remember asking a question a while ago if an assembly can vote to give up their rights, i.e. choose to form a dictatorship. Someone answered that an assembly has every right to vote on such a thing. Okay. The above motion seems similar. Another member, however, insists that it cannot be removed because it is a basic requirement of every organization to have a process to remove an executive, and that this motion is unconstitutional. Is he right or can an assembly vote to remove this element?

[Chris Harrison]

Well, even if there was nothing in the governing documents RONR provides a default mechanism for discipline which includes removing an officer (see Chapter XX).  If an organization wished to actually include a provision in their governing documents specifying officers cannot be removed I see nothing in RONR that would prevent it.

[grayduck]

We have the provision. Someone has motioned to remove it. You're saying that there is nothing in RONR that would prevent this motion? But that even if it is formally removed from our constitution, and that because we are based on RONR (which we are), that ability would never really go away anyhow?

[Chris Harrison]

We have the provision. Someone has motioned to remove it. You're saying that there is nothing in RONR that would prevent this?

Yes.

[grayduck]

So because we would default to RONR's process to remove an executive from office without this item in our constitution, this is actually kind of a meaningless motion. Correct?

[jstackpo]

Hold on a minute, the syntax confuses me....

 

Two facts (I guess): 

 

1)  Your constitution contains a "Thou shalt not remove officers" provision.

 

2)  RONR does not have any such rule and indeed has (fair and just) procedures to remove officers.

 

Hence, as things stand now, since your Constitution supersedes RONR, your officers (no matter what they may do) have the right to stay in office for their full terms.  You're stuck with them.

 

If you amend your bylaws to strike out the "Thou shalt not..." provision, you will then be able to remove officers where you couldn't before.  The strike out amendment is clearly not a "meaningless motion".

 

(Or did I misread something?)   Read p. 574, line 3 ff.  in this connection. It deals with how to remove them.

[grayduck]

No no. It's the other way around. Our constitution has the provision to remove an executive from office. The strike out amendment is to remove this provision. Another person says this motion is unconstitutional. Chris says there is nothing in RONR to prevent this motion.

 

My last question was that if this motion passed, and we deleted the section without adding a "Thou shalt not remove officers" provision, it is meaningless because we would thereafter default to RONR's rules on removing an officer.

[Gödel Fan]

It would only be meaningless if your current provisions were identical to those in RONR.  If your provisions for the removal of an Executive (I don't know what you mean by this, but presumably your organization does) differ from those in RONR, then striking this section from your Constitution would have the substantive effect of changing how you go about said removal.

[grayduck]

Goedel Fan. Okay. Now I understand: it would be substantive because it would remove our current, association-specific provision and shift to the RONR provision. My point is that there would still be some form of a provision to removing an executive, so the motion is not as sweeping as the mover intends.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Can an assembly vote on a motion to remove the section in their constitution that allows for removing an Executive from office? 

 

I remember asking a question a while ago if an assembly can vote to give up their rights, i.e. choose to form a dictatorship. Someone answered that an assembly has every right to vote on such a thing. Okay. The above motion seems similar. Another member, however, insists that it cannot be removed because it is a basic requirement of every organization to have a process to remove an executive, and that this motion is unconstitutional. Is he right or can an assembly vote to remove this element?

 

Generally, your assembly could amend your constitution any way it wants as long as it follows the rules in your constitution for amending it.

[jstackpo]

No no. It's the other way around. Our constitution has the provision to remove an executive from office. The strike out amendment is to remove this provision.

 

Ah, got it. Thank you for correcting me.

 

If you do think about removing your existing "Throw the bums out" provision(s), thus reverting back to RONR's default rules. pay particular attention to RONR, p. p. 574, line 3ff. and p. 653, line 23ff.   The RONR removal rules may, depending on what remains in your bylaws in the section on terms in office (!), be quite easy to follow.

 

And, as noted by others here, it is entirely proper to amend your bylaws to take out the "Throw the bums out" provision. Indeed, probably a good idea since RONR's defaults have been carefully honed over the years.

[Richard Brown]

I want to point to toxrednil that all of the answers we have been providing in this forum are based on the 11th edition of RONR.  If your organization is incorporated or subject to other procedural laws, such as might be found with a homeowners association, there might be statutory provisions dealing with removing officers.  Any such provisions in state law would trump RONR and also quite likely your bylaws.