Removal of an Officer

[J. J.]

On 12/17/2022 at 4:32 PM, Guest Madisyn M. said:

@J. J.hence the argument of bias as the chair is the one under scrutiny for sexual misconduct.

Perhaps you do not understand.  It is the duty of the parliamentarian to advise the chair.  Period.  If he is or is not going to be facing charges is immaterial to that. 

[J. J.]

On 12/17/2022 at 3:15 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If it is desired to preclude the possibility of a continuing breach, a Point of Order may be raised immediately to force an interpretation of the bylaws.  Since the point of order was timely, the question of timeliness raised in 23:6 no longer applies.  If the bylaws are interpreted in a timely manner to mean that no trial is required, that's the end of it.  

But further, removal from office violates no protection of absentees, privacy of votes, or basic rights of membership, as referenced in 23:6e.  The "right" to hold office as a basic right of membership does not exist.

If you are interested in this subject, i.e. breaching being continuous and the role of precedent, you might see "Precedent and RONR," National Parliamentarian. 3rd Quarter. 2012, pp. 19-21.  It actually gives an example of an ambiguous bylaw being subject to dueling interpretations in different sessions.