Officer removal

[Robbie Sims]

I have a question concerning the removal of officers from a organization. I belong to an model railroad club that has an approved constitution and by laws. We use Roberts Rules of Order. We have four officers, a President, Vice President, Treasurer and Secretary. We hold elections every first Tuesday during the month of January every year. Each officer holds their term for one year. We have no by law concerning the removal of an officer before their term is complete. My question is this: Can a member who has voting privileges make a motion to remove an officer prior to the completion of his or her term? Again, we have no by laws stipulating a course of action if an officer is removed and how we go about the re nomination of a new officer.

thanks

RS

[Joshua Katz]

What do your bylaws say about the term of office, exactly?

[Robbie Sims]

Section 1:

Term of Officers

"Each Officer of the Club is elected annually and shall serve for a term of one (1) year. Elections are to be held at the First Business Meeting in January of each year"

[Joshua Katz]

In that case, the only way to remove an officer is through the disciplinary process. Do your bylaws have one? If not, the process is in Chapter XX. It is complicated, so come back with any questions.

[Richard Brown]

On 5/10/2023 at 11:08 AM, Robbie Sims said:

Term of Officers

"Each Officer of the Club is elected annually and shall serve for a term of one (1) year. Elections are to be held at the First Business Meeting in January of each year"

Do your bylaws contain anything similar to the phrase "or until their successors are elected" anywhere in the bylaws?  Although the phrase could be anywhere in the bylaws, it would most likely be in the article dealing with elections or officers.

If your bylaws are truly silent, then I agree with Mr. Katz that you will most likely have to follow the provisions of chapter XX of RONR which is rather complicated.  For openers, you might look at FAQ #20 regarding the removal of officers on the main website.  Scroll down to the last question: https://robertsrules.com/frequently-asked-questions/

 

[Joshua Katz]

On 5/10/2023 at 11:48 AM, Richard Brown said:

Do your bylaws contain anything similar to the phrase "or until their successors are elected" anywhere in the bylaws?  Although the phrase could be anywhere in the bylaws, it would most likely be in the article dealing with elections or officers.

 

Now that I think about it, maybe this should become our stock response to the question about removal: "Please control-f your bylaws for the word successors and give us what you find" instead of asking about term of office.

 

[Robbie Sims]

Section 1:

Term of Officers

 

Thanks for everyone's help. One other question. Who would be the person(s) who would agree to forming an investigative committee? Could any members just form their own committee without approval? or would the officers that would not be under investigation have a say so on whether an investigation is even warranted?

 

Thanks

 

Robbie

[Richard Brown]

On 5/13/2023 at 10:44 AM, Robbie Sims said:

One other question. Who would be the person(s) who would agree to forming an investigative committee? Could any members just form their own committee without approval? or would the officers that would not be under investigation have a say so on whether an investigation is even warranted?

The disciplinary procedures in RONR or rather complex. The chapter on discipline, chapter XX, is 26 pages long. It’s really hard to summarize that in one or two short comments.

I suppose that any one or more members, acting on their own, can look into another members conduct and determine whether they think it warrants disciplinary action. However, this would be unofficial and not anything done on behalf of the organization.

In general, RONR provides that the membership itself would create a committee to investigate a complaint And also create the trial committee, if there is to be one, unless the bylaws give this authority to the board. 

Rather than try to do a lot of copying and pasting, I’m simply going to urge you to get a copy of the 12th edition of RONR and read up on the disciplinary procedures in chapter XX.

The paperback version is available from Amazon for around $15 and the Kindle version is somewhere around $20.
 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/13/2023 at 11:44 AM, Robbie Sims said:

Thanks for everyone's help. One other question. Who would be the person(s) who would agree to forming an investigative committee? Could any members just form their own committee without approval? or would the officers that would not be under investigation have a say so on whether an investigation is even warranted?

If the rules in RONR apply, the general membership would appoint the committee, much like any special committee is appointed.  It's not something that would be left up to officers to decide, except for their votes as a members of the general assembly.

I don't see how it would be possible to exclude anyone from voting on an investigation, since unless and until such a motion is adopted, nobody is yet under investigation.  If that committee then recommends named individuals who should stand trial, that's a different matter.

[Josh Martin]

On 5/13/2023 at 10:44 AM, Robbie Sims said:

Who would be the person(s) who would agree to forming an investigative committee?

The membership as a whole, at a membership meeting, would adopt a motion to form an investigative committee, by majority vote.

On 5/13/2023 at 10:44 AM, Robbie Sims said:

Could any members just form their own committee without approval?

No.

On 5/13/2023 at 10:44 AM, Robbie Sims said:

or would the officers that would not be under investigation have a say so on whether an investigation is even warranted?

The membership as a whole would vote on the matter, not just the board or officers. The officers not proposed to be included in the investigation should, of course, feel free to vote and speak in debate on the matter, the same as other members.

On 5/13/2023 at 1:41 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I don't see how it would be possible to exclude anyone from voting on an investigation, since unless and until such a motion is adopted, nobody is yet under investigation.  If that committee then recommends named individuals who should stand trial, that's a different matter.

It would seem to me the person(s) proposed to be the subject(s) of the investigation should abstain from voting on the matter, as they have a personal interest not in common with other members, but I concur that they cannot be compelled to abstain.