Guest Vince A. Posted November 15, 2015 at 01:00 PM Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 at 01:00 PM A hearing board, trial board was held against the president, our bylaws state VP takes on the duties of president in the absence of, when a hearing of evidence is held by the trial board bylaws say 2 trustees, president, 2 line officer's and one rank and file member. Trustees used a past president saying VP refused because he couldn't get out of work and they didn't have to reschedule, aren't bylaws first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted November 15, 2015 at 02:07 PM Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 at 02:07 PM Yes, follow your bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 15, 2015 at 03:32 PM Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 at 03:32 PM A hearing board, trial board was held against the president, our bylaws state VP takes on the duties of president in the absence of, when a hearing of evidence is held by the trial board bylaws say 2 trustees, president, 2 line officer's and one rank and file member. Trustees used a past president saying VP refused because he couldn't get out of work and they didn't have to reschedule, aren't bylaws first. It's correct that the bylaws take precedence over the organization's customs, but I don't really understand what the conflict is. A rule which states that the VP takes on the duties of the President in his absence doesn't mean much if the Vice President is absent, and there is nothing in RONR which would require the board to reschedule so that the Vice President can attend. In the event that a hearing is being held for the President and the Vice President is absent, the board should elect a Chairman Pro Tempore to preside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vince A. Posted November 15, 2015 at 04:01 PM Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 at 04:01 PM Thanks, thought so. Trustees said they could use an x president when questioned about it stating RR"s allowed it and when they where asked to show that in the book they said they could under past practice and refused to show that they could under RR"s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted November 15, 2015 at 04:51 PM Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 at 04:51 PM Thanks, thought so. Trustees said they could use an x president when questioned about it stating RR"s allowed it and when they where asked to show that in the book they said they could under past practice and refused to show that they could under RR"s. Well, a Past President can be elected as a Chairman Pro Tem at the meeting. There is nothing wrong with that. RONR does not state that a Past President is allowed, but it also does not state that a Past President cannot do the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gödel Fan Posted November 16, 2015 at 05:27 AM Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 at 05:27 AM I don't understand the responses here. The bylaws say that a hearing includes, among others, the President. This seems to attach to the person, not transfer with the chair. Since the bylaws say the VP has the powers of the President in the President's absence, I agree that the VP can do this, but I don't see how any old chair pro tem works. This looks a lot more like, say, appointment of committees, a power that doesn't transfer with the gavel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 16, 2015 at 02:12 PM Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 at 02:12 PM I don't understand the responses here. The bylaws say that a hearing includes, among others, the President. This seems to attach to the person, not transfer with the chair. Since the bylaws say the VP has the powers of the President in the President's absence, I agree that the VP can do this, but I don't see how any old chair pro tem works. This looks a lot more like, say, appointment of committees, a power that doesn't transfer with the gavel.Someone still needs to be elected to chair the Trial Board, but I concur that it would not be appropriate to make someone else a member of the Trial Board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gödel Fan Posted November 16, 2015 at 04:15 PM Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 at 04:15 PM Yes, but if the bylaws state that the President is necessary to hold a trial (that's a real if - I can't tell from the summary if it does or not, I would need exact language), how can a trial be held in their absence (I'm accepting for the moment that the VP would suffice also)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 16, 2015 at 06:10 PM Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 at 06:10 PM Yes, but if the bylaws state that the President is necessary to hold a trial (that's a real if - I can't tell from the summary if it does or not, I would need exact language), how can a trial be held in their absence (I'm accepting for the moment that the VP would suffice also)?So far as I can tell, the President isn't absent - he's the one on trial. In any event, if the Bylaws indeed provide that, in this instance, the Vice President must be present in order to hold the trial, then I suppose that's what must happen, but I don't see anything from the facts provided which indicates that this is the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vince A. Posted November 18, 2015 at 01:39 AM Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 at 01:39 AM Yes the president was the one on trial and yes the bylaws say VP assumes the duties of president in his absence. To be blunt the hearing, trial was scheduled for Saturday, they canceled and rescheduled for Sunday evening knowing the VP had to work and couldn't attend, I believe they should have followed the bylaws and scheduled the hearing, trial so the VP could be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 18, 2015 at 02:05 PM Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 at 02:05 PM Yes the president was the one on trial and yes the bylaws say VP assumes the duties of president in his absence. To be blunt the hearing, trial was scheduled for Saturday, they canceled and rescheduled for Sunday evening knowing the VP had to work and couldn't attend, I believe they should have followed the bylaws and scheduled the hearing, trial so the VP could be there.I still maintain that nothing in the bylaws which has been provided so far suggests that the trial must be held at a time that the VP can attend. If the VP cannot attend, however, no one else can be appointed to take his place as a trial board member - the board will just have one absent member. The board can and should elect a Chairman Pro Tempore in the VP's absence. The fact that the trial was intentionally scheduled so that the VP could not attend is rather rude, but still does not appear to be a violation of the bylaws.What is more concerning is that you say that the trial was "canceled and rescheduled." It's not entirely clear that this was done properly. How was this done? How do your bylaws say that meetings of the trial board are scheduled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted November 21, 2015 at 01:16 AM Report Share Posted November 21, 2015 at 01:16 AM So far as I can tell, the President isn't absent - he's the one on trial. In any event, if the Bylaws indeed provide that, in this instance, the Vice President must be present in order to hold the trial, then I suppose that's what must happen, but I don't see anything from the facts provided which indicates that this is the case. Wouldn't who presides over the trial board a rule in the nature of a rule order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 21, 2015 at 02:12 AM Report Share Posted November 21, 2015 at 02:12 AM Wouldn't who presides over the trial board a rule in the nature of a rule order? Yes, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted November 21, 2015 at 02:15 AM Report Share Posted November 21, 2015 at 02:15 AM Yes, of course. Even if there was such a rule, it could be suspened. I think I am in agreement that it would not be a fatal flaw to the trial board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.