Guest mjhmjh Posted February 13, 2017 at 06:36 PM Report Share Posted February 13, 2017 at 06:36 PM RONR (11th ed.), p. 668, 63. 9-10 state that "For all [penalties], including removal from office, a majority vote is required." Why does RONR have such a low threshold for removing an officer? Would it be wise to set a higher threshold in the bylaws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted February 13, 2017 at 06:53 PM Report Share Posted February 13, 2017 at 06:53 PM That vote follows the disciplinary proceedings of an investigation and trial described in the preceding pages. Your organization could set whatever requirements it wants in its bylaws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted February 14, 2017 at 02:45 AM Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 at 02:45 AM Also, a majority vote is also what is required to elect an officer. So, after a trial (with the accused officer providing a defense), a majority vote is sufficient according to RONR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted February 14, 2017 at 04:50 AM Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 at 04:50 AM 10 hours ago, Guest mjhmjh said: RONR (11th ed.), p. 668, 63. 9-10 state that "For all [penalties], including removal from office, a majority vote is required." Q1.) Why does RONR have such a low threshold for removing an officer? Q2.) Would it be wise to set a higher threshold in the bylaws? A1.) Because previous notice will have always preceded such an event. A2.) No. If a person sits in a position of trust (such as an officer position) has lost that trust, as judged by a majority vote of the body, then why would you want a high-level rule to keep in place an officer who has: damaged organizational property; embezzled money; physically assaulted guests; or involved themselves in a criminal enterprise? Why not just put into office a person without these "behavioral problems"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 15, 2017 at 09:08 AM Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 at 09:08 AM On 2/13/2017 at 11:50 PM, Kim Goldsworthy said: damaged organizational property; embezzled money; physically assaulted guests; or involved themselves in a criminal enterprise? You left out cannibalism, again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted February 16, 2017 at 08:32 PM Report Share Posted February 16, 2017 at 08:32 PM No rule in RONR would prohibit it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts