Removal of an officer from Executive Board

[Guest Liz Cheney]

I am current the leader of an organization. Our last election was close, a difference of 2 votes. The voting list used was challenged and the challenge was found not to have merit. A number of members are not happy with re-election and are now looking to formally remove me from the Board. 
Our Constitution and By-Laws only state that an officer may be removed by a 2/3 vote of members at a regular meeting. No process to follow. 
My question is around the vote first taken to invoke the section of the Constitution. Does that require a 2/3 vote as well, or a simple majority. 
Thank you in advance. 

[Joshua Katz]

19 minutes ago, Guest Liz Cheney said:

My question is around the vote first taken to invoke the section of the Constitution. Does that require a 2/3 vote as well, or a simple majority. 

I think you'll need to explain a bit more what you mean by this. If the Constitution says that an officer may be removed by a 2/3 vote, what is it you're looking to "invoke"? As a general matter, constitutional provisions and bylaws need not be "invoked," they simply tell you what to do. But perhaps you can explain further.

It should be noted that congressional caucuses/conferences have their own rules that differ from RONR.

[Richard Brown]

I share The confusion that Mr. Katz has. If the bylaws say simply that an officer may be removed by a 2/3 vote of the membership, it seems to me that the only thing necessary is that someone make a motion to remove the officer. It will then take a 2/3 vote of those members present and voting to remove the officer. I do not see where any other steps are required, such as “invoking the bylaw provision”, but perhaps I am missing something.

I agree with Mr. Katz that it will be helpful if the original poster will further explain the situation and explain what she means by  “Invoking” a particular provision of the constitution. It would normally apply automatically without having to be specifically involved by some separate vote.

[Guest Liz Cheney]

Thank you for your replies.
Consulting with former leaders of the organization and our current legal counsel, they indicated that first a vote must be taken in order to invoke the language for removal. Then a second vote (if that passed) would be on the actual motion to remove the officer. 
You both seem to be saying that with the language as it is stated, there would just be the vote for the removal of the officer? 
is there a section in RR which addresses this? Thank you again. 

[Richard Brown]

Guest Liz, I still do not understand why a separate vote must be taken to "invoke" a certain bylaw or constitution provision to remove an officer.  RONR DOES NOT contain such a requirement.  Any such requirement will have to be in your organization's own rules.  Per the rules in RONR, unless your rules provide that an officer shall serve a fixed term without containing a clause permitting earlier removal, an officer can be removed from office upon a simple motion to do so.  The vote required in RONR is a majority vote if previous notice of the motion is given, or, without such notice, a two thirds vote of those present and voting or a majority of the entire membership of the body that is voting.  The rules go on to provide that your rules on the subject, if any, will supersede those in RONR.  Apparently your rules require a two-thirds vote.

This is covered in Section 62:16 of RONR (12th ed.).  There is also a brief explanation of the process that you might find useful in FAQ # 20 on the main website.  It is three paragraphs.  The first paragraph does not appear to me to apply to your situation, but the second and third paragraphs do.  Scroll down to FAQ # 20 (the last one) using this link:  https://robertsrules.com/frequently-asked-questions/

Let us know if you need more information.  Although we prefer not to post long excerpts, we can post the text of §62:16 if you need us to, but you can purchase an electronic Kindle version of RONR on Amazon for around $25 and have access almost instantaneously.

In order to comment on the claim that there must first be a separate vote on invoking some bylaw or constitution provision before voting on a motion to remove, we would have to actually see the text of that provision.  Even then, if it is a customized rule,  it is ultimately up to the members of your organization to interpret it.  We can tell you what we as individual parliamentarians think of it, but ultimately our opinions don't count.  The ones that count are the opinions of the members of your organization.

 

[Joshua Katz]

47 minutes ago, Guest Liz Cheney said:

Consulting with former leaders of the organization and our current legal counsel, they indicated that first a vote must be taken in order to invoke the language for removal. Then a second vote (if that passed) would be on the actual motion to remove the officer. 

But are they basing this statement on anything in particular? If they're referencing RONR, ask them for the page. (There isn't one.) If they're referencing your rules, well, then they could be right. 

I agree with Mr. Brown on the sections that address generally the question of removal. But that doesn't quite seem to be the issue here. There is no cite I can give you in RONR for the proposition that rules just work without being "invoked" because that statement doesn't appear in RONR. But why would it be expected to? We don't say, well, RONR says that the privileged motion to adjourn is undebatable, so let's vote to invoke that rule so that the privileged motion to adjourn will be undebatable. We just move to adjourn at such a time as the motion is privileged. This might not be the best example, but it's late (for me anyway).

51 minutes ago, Guest Liz Cheney said:

You both seem to be saying that with the language as it is stated, there would just be the vote for the removal of the officer? 

Well, I haven't seen the language, and even if I had, I wouldn't be interpreting it. What I'm saying is that, so far as parliamentary procedure goes, that is the usual situation. Because the nature of rules is that they tell you what to do and how to do it. They always govern when applicable, because that's their reason for existing. So there is never an option to "invoke" or not a rule by a majority vote. The term invoke sometimes makes sense when it means this: a rule applies in a given circumstance, so creating that circumstance is invoking the rule. I invoke the laws regarding stepped-up basis on bequest by receiving a residence by bequest, selling it, and reporting it with the stepped-up basis. In that sense, you "invoke" this rule by moving to remove an officer. But you don't need a majority vote to make the motion, you just make it.