Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

President makes decision without Boards knowledge


GeorgeP
 Share

Recommended Posts

 We are a non-profit BOD consisting of 5 people.  Recently we discovered that the President make a decision without the knowledge or approval of the rest of the board to cancel an event that has been on agenda and had been done on an annual basis..  In attempt to gain support in opposition of the Presidents move,  an email vote (per our bylaws) was conducted and sent to all 5 board members requesting their approval to in essence 'reverse' the presidents decision.  4 votes approved were returned,  shortly after that one vote withdrawn citing the voting process was not done according to bylaws.  The objection was handled with additional email which addressed the omission of steps to follow for voting process (ie phone call vs email vote).  

How should this have been handled ?   Nothing referenced in Bylaws addressing that President has this level authority.  Appreciate info/comments/suggestions and thank you in advance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since essentially everything, right or wrong, that happened is not authorized in RONR, only the rules in your bylaws will be able to tell you what should (or should not) have happened.  And maybe what to do about it.  Bylaw rules supersede RONR rules as a general matter.

For a first step double check whether your bylaws give the president the power, or authority, to cancel events.  If not, then he can't.  Therefore ignore him/her and hold the annual event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Who's Coming to Dinner
7 hours ago, GeorgeP said:

 How should this have been handled ?   Nothing referenced in Bylaws addressing that President has this level authority.

The vote seems superfluous. This is an administrative matter, not a parliamentary one. If the President exceeded his or her authority, the board members need only have undertaken whatever corrective action was necessary to reinstate the event. If you wish, you could move to discipline the President at your next meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2017 at 1:42 PM, GeorgeP said:

 We are a non-profit BOD consisting of 5 people.  Recently we discovered that the President make a decision without the knowledge or approval of the rest of the board to cancel an event that has been on agenda and had been done on an annual basis..  In attempt to gain support in opposition of the Presidents move,  an email vote (per our bylaws) was conducted and sent to all 5 board members requesting their approval to in essence 'reverse' the presidents decision.  4 votes approved were returned,  shortly after that one vote withdrawn citing the voting process was not done according to bylaws.  The objection was handled with additional email which addressed the omission of steps to follow for voting process (ie phone call vs email vote).  

How should this have been handled ?   Nothing referenced in Bylaws addressing that President has this level authority.  Appreciate info/comments/suggestions and thank you in advance

Votes cannot be taken by e-mail, unless the bylaws so provide, but the President also had no authority to cancel the event in the first place, unless the bylaws so provide. So the event is still on.

Edited by Josh Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the fact that the president is singular and their is plural, it would be helpful to know more about how this event became an annual event that did not need to be re-authorized. Was it specifically established as an annual event by means of an adopted motion? Was it originally approved as a one time event that has become custom? How many times has this event taken place? 

To ask another way, why is it that this event should take place without specific authorization? 

I suspect there is some internal squabbling that we aren't privy to going on here. If the president did something wrong or even just unpopular, there are ways of dealing with that from censure to removal from office. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yes, I've heard of indefinite pronouns, and "their" isn't one of them.

You still didn't answer what sex the President is.

And I presume you've heard of the Oxford Dictionary

Their: 1.1 Belonging to or associated with a person of unspecified sex.

‘she heard someone blow their nose loudly’
 
Edited by SaintCad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SaintCad said:

You still didn't answer what sex the President is.

And I presume you've heard of the Oxford Dictionary

Their: 1.1 Belonging to or associated with a person of unspecified sex.

‘she heard someone blow their nose loudly’
 

That's interesting. The one I've looked at defines "indefinite pronoun" as "A pronoun that does not refer to any person, amount, or thing in particular, e.g. anything, something, anyone, everyone."

And no, of course I don't know this President's sex, but I'm fairly certain there is only one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

That's interesting. The one I've looked at defines "indefinite pronoun" as "A pronoun that does not refer to any person, amount, or thing in particular, e.g. anything, something, anyone, everyone."

And no, of course I don't know this President's sex, but I'm fairly certain there is only one of them.

Yes I made an error after a 16 hour day, it is a possessive determiner.

And of course you ignored the definition I quoted that shows that "their" is proper for a singular person if their sex is not know.  Can't admit you're wrong?  How shocking.

from dictionary.com's definition - used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent

Singular means one.

Edited by SaintCad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SaintCad said:

And of course you ignored the definition I quoted that shows that "their" is proper for a singular person if their sex is not know.  Can't admit you're wrong?  How shocking.

from dictionary.com's definition - used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent.  

Oh, I'm not ignoring what you quoted, and I do not think it at all surprising that one can now find support for this sort of silliness. It's just that I'm old enough not to be impressed with the length people go to these days in striving for gender neutrality.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Oh, I'm not ignoring what you quoted, and I do not think it at all surprising that one can now find support for this sort of silliness. It's just that I'm old enough not to be impressed with the length people go to these days in striving for gender neutrality.

 

 

 

Unbelievably the evolution of language does not depend on you for approval.  So if you want to be pedantic about people's grammar you might want to make sure they are actually incorrect first.  And I mean actually incorrect, not a "Disagree with Dan's curmudgeon viewpoint = incorrect" error.

Or if you make an honest error (like I did) man up and admit it instead of doubling down on the "I'm Dan therefore I'm correct" mantra you spew when you get called out on your mistake.

You may think that because you're old you have somehow earned the right to be an ass.  You are wrong on that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, SaintCad said:

Unbelievably the evolution of language does not depend on you for approval.  So if you want to be pedantic about people's grammar you might want to make sure they are actually incorrect first.  And I mean actually incorrect, not a "Disagree with Dan's curmudgeon viewpoint = incorrect" error.

Or if you make an honest error (like I did) man up and admit it instead of doubling down on the "I'm Dan therefore I'm correct" mantra you spew when you get called out on your mistake.

You may think that because you're old you have somehow earned the right to be an ass.  You are wrong on that too.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your feedback.  I believe this experience has given (at least some of) our board a clearer understanding of the importance of following our bylaws and RROR.  I believe I failed to mention that I am a new member to this board,  as I stepped up to fill a vacancy resulting from an resignation (the result of prior unappropriate actions by a board member)   In response to Mr. Browns' Dec 12 post,  this was not a 'one-time' event,  rather an annual one in which there should never have been opposition.   We will now be focusing on how to prevent this issue from happening again.    

The event was a huge success...............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...