Dissolving a board (previously posted under "Abandon meetings")

[Guest David]

Can a board be dissolved when a scheduled meeting is not called to order.  Can a new board then be put in place?

 

[Shmuel Gerber]

10 hours ago, Guest David said:

Can a board be dissolved when a scheduled meeting is not called to order.  Can a new board then be put in place?

If there is a valid method of "dissolving" the board, then the board's failure to call a scheduled meeting to order might be cited as the rationale for doing so. However, if you are referring to the incident discussed and shown from the viewpoint at https://knst.iheart.com/featured/garret-lewis/content/2021-04-27-vail-school-board-flees-parents-elect-new-board-vote-to-end-mask-mandate/ then you should know that there is nothing in Robert's Rules of Order to suggest that a new board was validly elected. That episode was quite ludicrous from a procedural perspective.

[Richard Brown]

22 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

you should know that there is nothing in Robert's Rules of Order to suggest that a new board was validly elected. That episode was quite ludicrous from a procedural perspective.

Wow! That was wild! I hope we can find and read the follow up news reports!

[Atul Kapur]

2 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

you should know that there is nothing in Robert's Rules of Order to suggest that a new board was validly elected.

Agreeing with Mr. Gerber, the only relevant reference I could find in RONR was on p. v

Edited April 29, 2021 at 06:31 AM by Atul Kapur

[J. J.]

It appears that they are publicly elected.  Even if all the members resigned, there is likely statutory requirements for filling vacancies, that does involve people showing up and declaring themselves the electorate.  RONR notes that a procedural rule of law will supersede the requirements of RONR and that any action in violation of those rules is null and void (23:6, c.).

A body may adjourn if in cases of safety (8:10) which might be applicable.

Agreeing with Mr. Gerber, Mr. Brown and Dr. Kapur, unless statute (or a bylaw) permits a mob to show up declare themselves the electorate, this is quite ludicrous.

 

[Joshua Katz]

13 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Agreeing with Mr. Gerber, Mr. Brown and Dr. Kapur, unless statute (or a bylaw) permits a mob to show up declare themselves the electorate, this is quite ludicrous.

 

 

[Guest Zev]

If I am not mistaken, RONR says nothing about who is the ultimate sovereign over the school children in Vail, Colorado. I think it wise to stay out of that dispute.

[Shmuel Gerber]

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

If I am not mistaken, RONR says nothing about who is the ultimate sovereign over the school children in Vail, Colorado. I think it wise to stay out of that dispute.

Indeed, RONR does not say anything that would give the right to an impromptu public gathering in the lobby at the announced location of a public school-board meeting to elect new board members. Yet the person leading the "meeting" can be heard on the video claiming several times that Robert's Rules of Order gave the assemblage the power to do that. And I don't think there is actually any legitimate dispute as to the validity of that "election," which seemed to me more in the nature of a protest.

[Shmuel Gerber]

16 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Wow! That was wild! I hope we can find and read the follow up news reports!

Here is a report from a TV station that had cameras at the meeting, and here is a write-up from National Review. 

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

If I am not mistaken, RONR says nothing about who is the ultimate sovereign over the school children in Vail, Colorado. I think it wise to stay out of that dispute.

For what it's worth, I believe this was Vail, Arizona. Which, frankly, makes more sense.

[Richard Brown]

3 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

If I am not mistaken, RONR says nothing about who is the ultimate sovereign over the school children in Vail, Colorado. I think it wise to stay out of that dispute.

Aw, C'mon:  not even for its entertainment value?