Chaos. In executive board

[Guest Detaildevil]

The bylaws of my group allow for election of officers, then for positions that become vacant executive board can nominate with president and executive board majority rule. The executive board has removed the president. The president should be reinstated by the national arm of the organization.if and when reinstated what happens to the officers..".. For example the elected chief steward...is somehow now stating he is Vice President. The Vice President was uponremoval of president was moved to president. When president is reinstalled by national...what happens to the shuffled around officers?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

The answer to your question would have to be found in the rules which allow for such reinstatement.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I can't follow the flow.

Q. How did a "chief steward" get involved in anything? And he asserts he is suddenly vice president? Out of nowhere?

>> What happens to the shuffled around officers?

There is no way to tell There is no such thing as "reinstatement" in Robert's Rules of Order. Either you are "in" or you are "out". So what you are describing has no corollary in The Book.

[Gary Novosielski]

Unless your bylaws say otherwise.

If a midterm vacancy occurs in the office of president, whether by resignation, removal, death, or what have you,   The vice president becomes president automatically

Nobody becomes vice president automatically, unless your society has a numbered sequence of vice presidents, in which case the 1st VP becomes president, and all other VP's subtract 1 from the ordinal number of their office, and slide over one chair.

In any case, a vacancy is created in the office of vice president, or the highest numbered vice president in the latter case.

 

It seems to me that if the removal is overruled or rescinded by a higher authority, everyone who changed office as a result of the removal resumes their previous office.

If anyone was appointed to any resulting vacancy, they're un-appointed.  Of course you might have customized rules on this, which would supersede anything in RONR. Or the Order of Reinstatement might specify how things should get sorted out.

But I see no reason to presume that the effect of such a reinstatement would be any different from what happens if a motion is rescinded or is declared null and void after its apparent passage.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2016 at 12:55 AM by Gary Novosielski
Capitalize Order to indicate it is a command rather than a sequence.

[Guest Devil detail]

Our by laws are silent , thus I will go with the latest entry, thank you and while security is necessary placing the puzzle pieces back is nutso, in my humble opinion

[Josh Martin]

5 hours ago, Guest Devil detail said:

Our by laws are silent , thus I will go with the latest entry, thank you and while security is necessary placing the puzzle pieces back is nutso, in my humble opinion

I think we need more information. Mr. Novosielski's argument seems reasonable, but this scenario involves the executive board removing the President and the national organization reinstating him. RONR grants neither body the authority to do these things, so I think we need to know more about the organization's own rules to determine which (if either) of these actions are proper before determining how to proceed from here.

[Gary Novosielski]

21 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I think we need more information. Mr. Novosielski's argument seems reasonable, but this scenario involves the executive board removing the President and the national organization reinstating him. RONR grants neither body the authority to do these things, so I think we need to know more about the organization's own rules to determine which (if either) of these actions are proper before determining how to proceed from here.

I don't disagree.   I may have been presuming that the executive board's removal of the president was unauthorized (presumptively true), and that the national organization was presumptuous enough to point that out, and put matters right.  But I can't argue that knowing who actually had what power, when, would be valuable knowledge.

[Josh Martin]

42 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I don't disagree.   I may have been presuming that the executive board's removal of the president was unauthorized (presumptively true), and that the national organization was presumptuous enough to point that out, and put matters right.  But I can't argue that knowing who actually had what power, when, would be valuable knowledge.

The issue with this is that, even if we assume that the executive board's removal of the President was unauthorized (which is very possible), the national organization does not necessarily have the power to "put matters right." It may well be that the organization's bylaws grant it this power, but so far as RONR is concerned, it is up to the general membership of the local society to deal with this matter. It's also not entirely clear to me who is presuming to act on behalf of the national organization, which may be also be important information.