new board denies reimbursement

[jbhhawaii]

Can a 2016 board deny reimbursement to a member whose legitimate expenditures were authorized by the 2015  board?  As mentioned in another discussion, the request for reimbursement came late, but precedent exists for paying receipts into the new year (by way of example, reimbursing someone approved to spend, and who is out of pocket at the end of December, for a Christmas party). No bylaws exist to prohibit it.  The new board wants to "punish" the person for submitting late receipts by asking the entire membership to vote on how  much to pay this person  back if anything.  They are recommending as little as $500.00 of the entire reimbursable amount of over $1500.00. The chair contends the matter was settled by the previous board, that the new board's proposal is malicious at bestl and is trying to figure out how to keep the matter from being added to the agenda at the next meeting.

[Gary Novosielski]

If the expenditures were authorized, is it your practice that another motion must be made to reimburse them?

[g40]

Perhaps to avoid such situations in the future, it might be best to have all such significant expenses paid directly by the Treasurer of the organization.

If these expenses were authorized by the Board and such incurred expenses are properly accounted for, it seems to me that they should just be paid - and the Board and membership should not interfere.

[jbhhawaii]

2015 board members followed custom (no hard rule)  requiring at least a simple majority vote among themselves to  approve expenditures (allowed below a dollar amount which requires membership approval). The approval was unanimous. Our rule, custom, is that all checks require 2 signatures. Due to the late submission of receipts for reimbursement, the 2016 treasurer now has the checkbooks. There is only one 2015 signatory still on the bank acct.   The 2015 treasurer is now the 2016 president and would gladly sign a check, but those 2016 officers on the bank acct refuse to cosign even though all is in order with the receipts. It is customary to have officers on the bank acct, but there is no rule stating a signatory must be an officer.  Not all officers want to be on the account. The 2016 president has been struggling to work with this new board that is hostile to him, undermine him with with rumors, false allegations, going over his head, and one even just "announcing" she is head of a new committee when no one has deemed a need for that committee. We do not currently require the use of RONR but use simple parts mostly to maintain order at meetings as needed.  The new group is proposing to have the membership vote to adopt RONR. From what I have read here and in edition 11 and before, I understand officers cannot be removed from office in a situation like ours...the city rules for officers state only that an officer only serves for one year in the same position.  There are no rules even requiring an election.

1. Can this president appoint a non-officer to have banking privileges so they can co-sign the check and also so he will not have his hands tied in the future by obstructionist officers who might work as a bloc (coup) against him during  what he thinks is going to be a long and trying final 10 months.  He is considering one of last year's officers. We have no rules to preclude it.

2.  Can he remove hostile members for reasons of not doing their job or, for example, for spreading rumors, etc? If no RONR in place, could he do that before it is voted in?

 

[jbhhawaii]

Sorry to not answer your question Gary.  No, there is no other motion needed to pay the person.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, jbhhawaii said:

The new group is proposing to have the membership vote to adopt RONR.

Good.

2 hours ago, jbhhawaii said:

1. Can this president appoint a non-officer to have banking privileges so they can co-sign the check and also so he will not have his hands tied in the future by obstructionist officers who might work as a bloc (coup) against him during  what he thinks is going to be a long and trying final 10 months.  He is considering one of last year's officers. We have no rules to preclude it.

No, unless your bylaws grant the President this authority.

2 hours ago, jbhhawaii said:

2.  Can he remove hostile members for reasons of not doing their job or, for example, for spreading rumors, etc? If no RONR in place, could he do that before it is voted in?

No, unless your bylaws grant the President this authority.

As to your original question, it seems to me it is within the authority of the board or membership to order that no reimbursement shall be paid, or that a partial reimbursement shall be paid, but this will require a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, which requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice. Whether this is a good idea is for the society to decide.