A Director's Appeal Failed: What now?

[Guest Mark]

Hello everyone,

 

This is my first post to this community, so forgive me if it is not done properly. I shall attempt to frame the question as clearly as I can. 

 

Essentially, I am the parliamentarian for a University students' council. We have a series of by-laws with respect to the requirements to sit as an Executive (Director), and maintain that seat. 

 

The by-laws explicitly state the following:

 

All Executives shall: 

 

(5) Take a maximum of four (4.0) courses during the term in office;

i. May be overruled with a properly posted motion at a Duly Constituted Meeting that has two-thirds (2/3) support.

 

The person in question appealed this, and subsequently was rejected by the assembly. The motion did not receive 2/3 support, but it did come very close. This person has, upon this rejection, decided that they shall not drop the 1.0 credit required to conform to this rule, and further refuses to step down from the position.

 

Now, my question is this. This person is well-liked, and, unfortunately, in student politics, friendship can often trump rational decision. Our by-laws further state that a member may be removed via a 2/3 majority, and it is unlikely that this will occur. 

 

What happens next? Am I allowed to declare that the Executive is simply no longer eligible to sit in their position, for failing to comply with this, or must the 2/3 majority go through to remove them? And, if it fails to pass, what happens next? Does Robert's Rules offer any assistance with respect to this? 

 

My apologies if this question is too vague. I would be happy to provide any more information, if necessary. 

[Guest Nancy N.]

...What happens next? Am I allowed to declare that the Executive is simply no longer eligible to sit in their position, for failing to comply with this ...? ..

 

 

I can start with this:  Unless your organization's rules define your "essential" role much differently from how RONR describes a parliamentarian, you yourself don't have the authority to make any such declaration.

[Gödel Fan]

What makes you essentially the parliamentarian, as opposed to actually the parliamentarian?  Any such declaring (or ruling) would have to be done by the chair, not the parliamentarian.  

 

What you should advise the chair is:  if the bylaws said that a person who misses 2 meetings is off the board, then a person who missed 2 meetings would be off the board.  You wouldn't make a motion at the 2nd meeting to say they're off the board - the bylaws already provide for it.  You'd just note their absence and that they're now off.  Here, the bylaw allows a 2/3 vote to grant an exception.  This person is in violation of the bylaw and didn't get a 2/3 vote for an exception.  I'd say he's out of the position.  There's no need to follow a removal process when the bylaws establish a requirement.

 

Your organization needs to interpret what "properly posted" means.  Your organization also needs to interpret whether he can ask for such a properly posted motion at every subsequent meeting, or what.

 

By the way, a "2/3 majority" is a contradiction in terms.  You mean a 2/3 vote.

[Josh Martin]

What happens next? Am I allowed to declare that the Executive is simply no longer eligible to sit in their position, for failing to comply with this, or must the 2/3 majority go through to remove them? And, if it fails to pass, what happens next? Does Robert's Rules offer any assistance with respect to this? 

Based on the facts presented, I would lean toward the interpretation that the rules for removing a board member must be followed. Board members don't automatically lose their position because they violate the rules. If the motion to remove fails, then it seems the assembly will have determined that they are not willing to grant the member an exception, but they are also not willing to remove him from his position despite that he is in violation of the bylaws.

If there's more facts we are not aware of, circumstances may be different. If the bylaws provide that a student who takes more than four courses is ineligible for office, or that a member is removed for taking more than four courses, then the chair (not you, but you'll advise the chair) could rule that the member is ineligible and can no longer serve. The chair's ruling may be appealed from, however, and a majority vote is sufficient to overturn his ruling. The assembly is the ultimate judge of its own rules.

What you should advise the chair is:  if the bylaws said that a person who misses 2 meetings is off the board, then a person who missed 2 meetings would be off the board.  You wouldn't make a motion at the 2nd meeting to say they're off the board - the bylaws already provide for it.  You'd just note their absence and that they're now off.  Here, the bylaw allows a 2/3 vote to grant an exception.  This person is in violation of the bylaw and didn't get a 2/3 vote for an exception.  I'd say he's out of the position.  There's no need to follow a removal process when the bylaws establish a requirement.

But do the bylaws say that the member is off the board? Based upon the information we are given, the bylaws provide that no member may take more than four courses without an exception, but they don't say what happens if this rule is violated. To use your own example, if the bylaws provide that a member shall not miss more than one meeting, but say nothing further, it would be necessary to use disciplinary procedures to remove the member. Violating a rule doesn't result in automatic removal unless the bylaws so provide, or if the member becomes ineligible to serve.

[George Mervosh]

Violating a rule doesn't result in automatic removal unless the bylaws so provide, or if the member becomes ineligible to serve.

 

But he is ineligible to serve.  That's why he appealed.  His appeal was rejected. Yet he still refuses to leave.  

[Josh Martin]

But he is ineligible to serve.  That's why he appealed.  His appeal was rejected. Yet he still refuses to leave.

Where exactly does it say that the member is ineligible to serve?

The by-laws explicitly state the following:

 

All Executives shall: 

 

(5) Take a maximum of four (4.0) courses during the term in office;

i. May be overruled with a properly posted motion at a Duly Constituted Meeting that has two-thirds (2/3) support.

It's not clear to me, from this information alone, that a member who takes more than four courses and does not receive an exception is ineligible to serve.

[George Mervosh]

Where exactly does it say that the member is ineligible to serve?

 

 

 

. We have a series of by-laws with respect to the requirements to sit as an Executive (Director), and maintain that seat. 

 

The by-laws explicitly state the following:

 

All Executives shall: 

 

(5) Take a maximum of four (4.0) courses during the term in office;

i. May be overruled with a properly posted motion at a Duly Constituted Meeting that has two-thirds (2/3) support.

 

 

 

I thought this was clear enough, but I suppose you can read it more than one way.  The guy who appealed probably thought so too or he wouldn't have appealed if he thought he could stay in office and ignore the requirement.  If you read it differently, ok, but I don't understand why the presiding officer, after declaring there was not 2/3 in favor of overruling (5), the member is ineligible to serve.

[Josh Martin]

I thought this was clear enough, but I suppose you can read it more than one way. The guy who appealed probably thought so too or he wouldn't have appealed if the thought he could stay in office and ignore the requirement. If you read it differently, ok, but I don't understand why the presiding officer, after declaring there was not 2/3 in favor of overruling (5), the member is ineligible to serve.

I somehow completely missed the sentence in bold. I concur with your interpretation.

[George Mervosh]

I somehow completely missed the sentence in bold. I concur with your interpretation.

 

I wasn't playing gotcha......I thought I missed something.  

[Gödel Fan]

I feel relieved.  

[Shmuel Gerber]

I somehow completely missed the sentence in bold. I concur with your interpretation.

 

 

I wasn't playing gotcha......I thought I missed something.  

 

I think we all missed the part where we're supposed to interpret language from the bylaws that hasn't been quoted.

I agree with Josh (before he disagreed with himself) that so far, all we've seen is a rule that an "Executive" must comply with, not a rule specifying eligibility to serve.

[Guest Mark]

Sorry everyone. Perhaps I've been a little less than clear. I'll try to clear up some of the confusion.

 

 

The by-law as I quoted above simply states that:

 

"All Executives shall: 

(5) Take a maximum of four (4.0) courses during the term in office;

i. May be overruled with a properly posted motion at a Duly Constituted Meeting that has two-thirds (2/3) support."

 

That is a direct quote. The issue for me pertains exactly to what Josh stated in post #4 and #6. They do not explicitly state that the person becomes ineligible to serve in their position if the appeal fails (this is an oversight, clearly). Is this explicit mention needed? Moreover, 

 

The problem rests in the following: what happens if a member is in clear violation of a by-law but the assembly refuses to remove them? Is there something that I should further pursue, or do I simply let the violation continue for the remainder of the year? In this respect, it would appear as if a person would need simply 1/3 support to pass this "appeal," as the minority bloc could simply refuse to vote the person out. Admittedly this is a situation that did not occur to me when aiding in the drafting of the policies. 

 

As well, I serve as the Governance Officer for my association. I am mandated to interpret and enforce existing policies and procedures within the organization. In this respect, I arbitrate disputes surrounding Robert's Rules & the by-laws in conjunction with the Speaker, although the sole authority for interpretation rests with me, according to our by-laws. My use of the word parliamentarian was admittedly a bit misleading. 

 

Is there any information i can provide which would clear anything else up? 

[Gödel Fan]

Given that the OP has now explicitly told us that, in fact, the quoted section is not from a discussion of the requirements to "maintain that seat" I agree with the original Josh Martin and Mr. Gerber.  

 

Since RONR does not contemplate a Governance Officer (or a Speaker), so far as I know - unless Governance Officer means you preside at meetings - your powers would come entirely from your bylaws, so your questions as to what you should or should not allow are unlikely to get definitive answers.  You are, in fact, not effectively the parliamentarian, you are something quite far from that role, since the parliamentarian, if a member, would waive the right to participate in debate, make motions, and vote except by ballot, and it appears that you are expected to be pretty active.  I can't imagine what it means to arbitrate disputes surrounding RONR and the bylaws, let alone doing so in conjunction with someone with no authority, and I'm not sure how you wind up with the sole authority for interpretation.  Suppose a point of order is raised, and you advise the Chair (or whatever it is you do) of your opinion.  If your interpretation is followed, are you saying an appeal would be out of order?  

 

I would, then, agree that the person is not automatically removed, and would need to be removed by disciplinary procedures for violating the bylaws.  Alternatively, you could propose to amend the bylaws to make a person enrolling in too many classes ineligible.