Past President Not Fulfilling Duties

[chamberpres]

We have a past president position on our board for a term of one year. This position is a voting member of our board of directors. Our bylaws clearly state that if any director misses three consecutive meetings without a request for an excused absence they will be immediately removed from the board. Our past president missed 4 consecutive meetings and went the entire time without any form of communication, leaving our board no choice but to dismiss them from the board. Now, they are requesting to be reseated as past president and claiming that we were against parliamentary procedure in removing them from the board. What is the correct course of action here? In addition, that one year term is up in April. If we were to reinstate them would we go back to when they were removed from position or to when they are reinstated?

[Guest Puzzling]

It all depends on the exact wording of your bylaws (and how the organisation interprets bad wording) 

The general opinion here that positions like "past this-of-that-officer  is not a good idea, especially if there is no voting or election involved. 

40 minutes ago, chamberpres said:

they are requesting to be reseated as past president and claiming that we were against parliamentary procedure in removing them

They make it sounded, but where did they read that? (It is not in RONR, by the way)

43 minutes ago, chamberpres said:

What is the correct course of action here? In addition, that one year term is up in April. If we were to reinstate them would we go back to when they were removed from position or to when they are reinstated?

This again depends on what the bylaws say, but if the bylaws are quiet...

[Richard Brown]

35 minutes ago, chamberpres said:

We have a past president position on our board for a term of one year. This position is a voting member of our board of directors. Our bylaws clearly state that if any director misses three consecutive meetings without a request for an excused absence they will be immediately removed from the board. Our past president missed 4 consecutive meetings and went the entire time without any form of communication, leaving our board no choice but to dismiss them from the board. Now, they are requesting to be reseated as past president and claiming that we were against parliamentary procedure in removing them from the board. What is the correct course of action here? In addition, that one year term is up in April. If we were to reinstate them would we go back to when they were removed from position or to when they are reinstated?

Ultimately this is a matter of interpreting your organization's bylaws, something only your own members can do. We cannot do that for you.  It is up to your organization to determine whether the past president is guaranteed the right to serve a full term regardless of having several unexcused absences or if he is subject to removal just as other directors are.  RONR offers no guidance on that point other than the principles of interpretation in Section 56:68.  Many of us who post on this forum disfavor automatically having past presidents serve on the board because of problems such as these.

As far as being "reinstated", RONR contains no procedure for doing so.  It seems to me that the past president would have to raise a point of order that his removal violated the bylaws and that such removal constitutes a continuing breach which did not require a timely point of order.  Your membership (or your board) will be the ultimate judge of that if the ruling of the chair is appealed.

You say that the removed member says his removal was "against parliamentary procedure".  What specific procedure or rule does he claim was violated? 

 

 

[Richard Brown]

For more information on removing people from office, see Chapter XX in the 12th edition of RONR in general and Section 62 in particular.  See also FAQ # 20 on the main website.  Scroll down to the last question, No 20:  https://robertsrules.com/frequently-asked-questions/

As noted in both RONR and in the last sentence of the answer to the FAQ, the rules in your own bylaws regarding removal from office will trump the rules in RONR.

 

[Weldon Merritt]

I concur with with Guest Puzzling and Richard Brown that having an official position for the IPP is a bad idea. The last Dr. John Stackpole, who was one of the most prolific posters here before his death, had a great list of reason why it's a bad idea. In Dr. Stackpole's words:

 

Quote

 

IPP is a Bad Idea:

And here's some reasons why the position is a bad idea:

In my personal view, setting up an "official" Immediate Past President (IPP) position is not a particularly good idea.  The most telling argument is the real possibility of a close and bitter race for the presidency, with the current president running (for a second term) against an "outsider".  And the outsider - the "reform candidate", perhaps - wins but is still stuck with the thorn of the IPP on the Board in a position to snipe at the new president.  And perhaps attempt to undermine the new president's plans.  Not to mention vote against them.

If the erstwhile president is a "good guy" the new president can (usually, depending on the bylaws) appoint him to a pre-existing committee - or even have him chair one, which might put him on the Board - as the new president sees fit.  That way the IPP's experience and value can be put to good use, when needed, without the danger of setting up an adversarial situation which would require a bylaw amendment to get out of.

Here's some more reasons

1) The President resigns and wants nothing to do with the organization.
 
2) The President simply doesn't run for election again because he's had enough, and never shows up at a board meeting.
 
3) The President is booted out of office for being incompetent, or for something more nefarious.
 
4) The President dies.
 
5) The President resigns and moves (wants to help but isn't around).

6) Even worse is the bylaw assignment of the IPP to chair a committee - such as nominating.  Then he dies/quits/leaves town, &c.  You are then stuck with an unfillable (by definition) vacancy.

Note that except for item 4, the IPP may well be part of the quorum requirement for meetings, even though he never shows up.

 

Unless you can guarantee that none of the eventualities listed by Dr. Stackpole will never occur (which, of course, no one can), I strongly recommend that you remove that position from the board at the earliest opportunity.

 

 

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

As far as being "reinstated", RONR contains no procedure for doing so.  It seems to me that the past president would have to raise a point of order that his removal violated the bylaws and that such removal constitutes a continuing breach which did not require a timely point of order.  Your membership (or your board) will be the ultimate judge of that if the ruling of the chair is appealed.

 

How? Only a member can raise a point of order. It seems to me he'll need to recruit someone to raise the point of order, and someone to appeal if necessary.

That said, my answer to the original question is: good question. My view is that rules disqualifying people who miss meetings operate automatically - no action of the body is necessary. At the same time, an immediate past president remains an immediate past president regardless of missing meetings. So my personal opinion is that the body never should have "removed" him, and he was not removed by operation of the rules either.

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

How? Only a member can raise a point of order. It seems to me he'll need to recruit someone to raise the point of order, and someone to appeal if necessary.

That said, my answer to the original question is: good question. My view is that rules disqualifying people who miss meetings operate automatically - no action of the body is necessary. At the same time, an immediate past president remains an immediate past president regardless of missing meetings. So my personal opinion is that the body never should have "removed" him, and he was not removed by operation of the rules either.

It depends how the bylaws a worded.

I agree with the others that this is a question of bylaw interpretation and that an immediate past president is a bad idea.