Can bylaws be ignored via general voting?

[Guest Guest Questioner]

Bylaw:
6.04 No Executive Board member shall hold the same office for more than two consecutive years except by recommendation of the executive board to the general membership, followed by a two thirds approval vote by the general membership and only if no other member desires nomination to the office.

So on the previous meeting minutes, it says:

All positions are up for grabs- Person has offered to run again (person has been on board more than 2 years)- vote taken all in favor of allowing Parent to run again if two other people didn’t run

The position in question is a co-position. The existing Person has completed two terms of two years each (because after the first term, there were no other candidate, so person was voted to serve a new term). This will be the third term. One parent clarified that Person is only allowed IF there's no other candidate and the president said yes. On the elections meeting, another candidate decided to run for the co-position. Person was still allowed to be voted, a total of three people. Parent brought up the clarification about the vote. The president said the clarification was made after the vote, and the president said yes (but something like the president was busy or something in the mind or not fully whatever), so to make it clear, the president asked again if Person can be part of the candidates, and majority raised their hands. There was also an argument about being co-position, and that technically, Person can be co#1 1st term and then co#2 the 2nd term. Well is this now back to co#1 not violating anything because person "was" co#2?

Bylaw:
13.01 The bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the members present at any general membership meeting..

I saw this afterwards. Does that make everything legitimate? It seems there's a clique going on and many people are subservient to whatever the executive board says, too lazy to challenge. That candidate actually tried to run last year, unfortunately, the only other time a new popular parent (granted, lots of help to the organization and kids) also decided to run. The candidate has many ideas, with a differing point of view, had been also helping A LOT, although the only minority in the group. They put that voting clause that previous meeting because they had a hunch that the candidate will try to run again.

So to restate it, did they do everything by the book, although very manipulatively? I have no doubt next year, if there are other candidates, they may just change their position around to still be executive board members. BTW, the other co-position that's serving the 2nd year said that having one year experience, and both being senior parents, there's no need for candidate to learn new things (in other words, being passive). Just can't believe it.

[rulesasker]

I wasn't able to follow everything you wrote, but no, they cannot ignore the bylaws. But they can change the bylaws by a 2/3 vote. Did they do that?

[Guest Thanks]

when you say "change" did you mean to change what will be written in the bylaws or change to allow something specifically, while keeping the bylaws intact.
For example.  if the bylaw says we can't have ice cream after dinner.  They can simply cast a vote to allow ice cream after dinner, when everybody says yes?
Votes were 2/3.

[rulesasker]

They need to amend the bylaws using the procedure your bylaws give. So they need to adopt a motion to amend the bylaws to remove the rule against ice cream after dinner. Without doing that, a motion to eat ice cream after dinner is out of order because it conflicts with the bylaws, even if 2/3 want to eat ice cream after dinner.

Normally, bylaws are written so that notice would be required before amending them. But your bylaws explicitly say that an amendment is allowed at any general membership meeting.

Edited May 15, 2024 at 07:19 PM by rulesasker

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/15/2024 at 3:02 PM, Guest Thanks said:

when you say "change" did you mean to change what will be written in the bylaws or change to allow something specifically, while keeping the bylaws intact.
For example.  if the bylaw says we can't have ice cream after dinner.  They can simply cast a vote to allow ice cream after dinner, when everybody says yes?
Votes were 2/3.

No.  The bylaws cannot be suspended, except in the case of rules that are clearly in the nature of rules of order, that is, rules for running meetings. The rules for candidate qualifications are not suspendible.

And the fact that a two-thirds vote was achieved does not "make everything all right".  The bylaws must be followed unless and until they are amended.

[Guest Questioner]

So in layman's term for both answers, they need to vote to change (amend) the bylaws first, THEN they can follow the now exempted/updated bylaw.
I guess it's also like people going past the speed limit, it's against the law, but many people doing it doesn't make it right.

Issue now is whether candidate wants to call them out regarding violating the bylaws and then being part of the board.  or candidate calls them out, and not be part of the clique, and the executive board stays intact anyway... because then there would be only two candidates.
There is the issue of serving one term as co#1 and co#2, but technically, it's not in the bylaw, it was just something interpreted at the moment, but this being the 3rd term still violates their interpreted rules.  If person then can't be co#1 or co#2 anymore, then it'll be a blank position?

What actually is the recourse? 

[rulesasker]

On 5/15/2024 at 5:44 PM, Guest Questioner said:

What actually is the recourse? 

Someone should have raised a point of order when the bylaw was violated. If the chair ignores that, they should have appealed to the assembly and could have overruled the chair by a majority vote. 

[Guest Questioner]

There was an attempt, but because the president explained and said so, and made it sound legit, everybody just went along.  If majority just goes along, then what good is  appealing to the assembly and voting?

What can be cited in Robert's Rule that bylaw is bylaw, even if you all voted to bypass it?  That amending the bylaw first via 2/3 vote to remove that clause or allow a clause saying that a general vote can be used to bypass the bylaw NEEDS TO BE DONE FIRST?

Also this is a nonprofit parent volunteer group for high school.  Who can overrule the executive board?  

So technically, last year, "person" serving the 2nd year of 2nd term is also in violation because at that time, there were 3 candidates for the 2 co positions?

[Guest Questioner]

On 5/15/2024 at 3:23 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

No.  The bylaws cannot be suspended, except in the case of rules that are clearly in the nature of rules of order, that is, rules for running meetings. The rules for candidate qualifications are not suspendible.

And the fact that a two-thirds vote was achieved does not "make everything all right".  The bylaws must be followed unless and until they are amended.

Who can I approach if I can't appeal to the board that seems to be in solidarity?  What possible protection can be created in case of retaliation (which already started by the president taking out a role of the candidate).

[Joshua Katz]

The general membership, which can override the board by recognized a point of order, and can also replace board members who do not follow the rules. (Like others, I can't really make out from the OP what happened, but that's a general answer as to whom you can turn to.)

[Guest Questioner]

On 5/16/2024 at 9:54 AM, Joshua Katz said:

The general membership, which can override the board by recognized a point of order, and can also replace board members who do not follow the rules. (Like others, I can't really make out from the OP what happened, but that's a general answer as to whom you can turn to.)

Added names to help follow along.  Some problem: if nobody else runs for the other positions, they get to keep them?  How to make general membership UNDERSTAND that the bylaw was broken - is there a section in Roberts Rules or Parliament that states no amount of voting can suspend the bylaw?

Bylaw:
6.04 No Executive Board member shall hold the same office for more than two consecutive years except by recommendation of the executive board to the general membership, followed by a two thirds approval vote by the general membership and only if no other member desires nomination to the office.

So on the previous meeting minutes, it says:

All positions are up for grabs- Dustin has offered to run again (Dustin has been on board more than 2 years)- vote taken all in favor of allowing Dustin to run again if two other people didn’t run

The position in question is a co-position. Dustin has completed two terms of two years each (because after the first term, there were no other candidate, so person was voted to serve a new term). This will be the third term. One parent clarified that Dustin is only allowed IF there's no other candidate and the president said yes. On the elections meeting, another candidate Gina decided to run for the co-position. Dustin was still allowed to be voted, for a total of three people. John brought up the clarification about the vote. The president said the clarification was made after the vote, and the president said yes (but something like the president was busy or something in the mind or not fully whatever), so to make it clear, the president asked again if Dustin can be part of the candidates, and majority raised their hands. There was also an argument about being co-position, and that technically, Dustin can be co-position #1 1st term and then be co-position #2 the 2nd term. Well is Dustin now back to co-position #1 and not violating anything because Dustin was last a co-position #2?

Bylaw:
13.01 The bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the members present at any general membership meeting..

I saw this afterwards. Does that make everything legitimate? It seems there's a clique going on and many people are subservient to whatever the executive board says, too lazy to challenge. Gina actually tried to run last year, unfortunately, the only other time a new popular parent (granted, lots of help to the organization and kids) also decided to run. The candidate has many ideas, with a differing point of view, had been also helping A LOT, although the only minority in every meeting. They put that voting clause that previous meeting because they had a hunch that the candidate will try to run again during the voting meeting.

So to restate it, did they do everything by the book, although very manipulatively? I have no doubt next year, if there are other candidates, they may just change their position around to still be executive board members. BTW, the other co-position that's serving the 2nd year said that having one year experience, and both being senior parents, there's no need for Gina to learn new things (in other words, being passive). Just can't believe it.

[Joshua Katz]

First, no, it isn't automatic that if a person stays in office. The body could withhold its consent by anything more than 1/3. And if no one runs, people can always find someone and nominate them. In other words, yes, making officers follow the rules takes work, but that's for the same reason it always is - magic wands aren't available. Bottom line - either the organization cares to follow its own rules, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it will continue doing what it feels like until it steps over a line and either people start to care, or there's legal action.

Second, I agree with the other answers that, no, clearing a 2/3 vote threshold for a motion that conflicts with your bylaws does not 

On 5/16/2024 at 2:53 PM, Guest Questioner said:

make everything legitimate

A motion is what is stated by the chair before the vote. If what is stated conflicts with the bylaws, it is null. If the chair did not say you were voting to amend the bylaws, you were not voting to amend the bylaws.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/16/2024 at 5:53 PM, Guest Questioner said:

I saw this afterwards. Does that make everything legitimate?

No, it does not.  And if you ask a fourth time the answer will be the same.

Specifically, to answer the question posed in the title:

No, bylaws cannot be ignored via general voting.

 

Edited May 16, 2024 at 10:29 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Guest Questioner]

On 5/16/2024 at 6:26 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

No, it does not.  And if you ask a fourth time the answer will be the same.

Specifically, to answer the question posed in the title:

No, bylaws cannot be ignored via general voting.

 

Are you sure 😃  Sorry, just a breath of relief.  I read that punishment can be a fine or imprisonment!  Who will be punished?  All members on Executive board?  Gina is not that cruel, and this is a smallish non-profit group.  Can they just be asked to write an apology letter to the parents (for violating the bylaw twice, abusing power, conspiring to keep Gina out of the executive board twice, and just being bad parents), resign and a new set of Executive board be formed?  It was done last year as well.

Can you shed a light on the co-position loophole that one can be a co-position #1 for 1st term of 2 years, co-position #2 for another term of 2 years, then back again to co-position #1 again for another term of 2 years...as long as there's no other candidate?   

Thank you.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/16/2024 at 10:48 PM, Guest Questioner said:

Are you sure 😃  Sorry, just a breath of relief.  I read that punishment can be a fine or imprisonment!  Who will be punished?  All members on Executive board?  Gina is not that cruel, and this is a smallish non-profit group.  Can they just be asked to write an apology letter to the parents (for violating the bylaw twice, abusing power, conspiring to keep Gina out of the executive board twice, and just being bad parents), resign and a new set of Executive board be formed?  It was done last year as well.

Can you shed a light on the co-position loophole that one can be a co-position #1 for 1st term of 2 years, co-position #2 for another term of 2 years, then back again to co-position #1 again for another term of 2 years...as long as there's no other candidate?   

Thank you.

There is no "co-" position loophole.  Co-positions are not permitted unless they're explicitly listed as such in your bylaws, and even then are strongly advised against.

[Joshua Katz]

On 5/16/2024 at 7:48 PM, Guest Questioner said:

Are you sure 😃  Sorry, just a breath of relief.  I read that punishment can be a fine or imprisonment!  Who will be punished?  All members on Executive board?  Gina is not that cruel, and this is a smallish non-profit group.  Can they just be asked to write an apology letter to the parents (for violating the bylaw twice, abusing power, conspiring to keep Gina out of the executive board twice, and just being bad parents), resign and a new set of Executive board be formed?  It was done last year as well.

 

You read where? Obviously not in RONR.

[Guest Questioner]

On 5/16/2024 at 11:40 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

There is no "co-" position loophole.  Co-positions are not permitted unless they're explicitly listed as such in your bylaws, and even then are strongly advised against.

They are listed in the bylaw, two treasurers.  "The officers of the association shall consist of the following elected positions:
President, Vice President, Secretary and two Treasurers." Question was whether Dustin can be treasurer (1) for two years, treasurer (2) for two years to bypass "No Executive Board member shall hold the same office for more than two consecutive years" or is "two Treasurers" counted as one office?

On 5/17/2024 at 6:57 AM, Joshua Katz said:

You read where? Obviously not in RONR.

https://www.squareone.ca/resource-centres/insurance-glossary/bylaw

"When someone breaks a bylaw, the punishment is usually a fine. In extreme cases, though, bylaw-breakers can face imprisonment."

Thanks for letting me know it's not in the RONR, so what is the penalty typically for the infractions? 

[Guest Questioner]

On 5/16/2024 at 11:40 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

There is no "co-" position loophole.  Co-positions are not permitted unless they're explicitly listed as such in your bylaws, and even then are strongly advised against.

It is listed in the bylaws The officers of the association shall consist of the following elected positions: President, Vice President, Secretary and two Treasurers. Wonering if the same person can be  co-treasurer1 for two years, co-treasurer2 for two years to bypass the No Executive Board member shall hold the same office for more than two
consecutive years even though when Dustin was voted for the 2nd term (no other candidate running) it wasn't specified that he's running for co-treasurer2 position.  

On 5/17/2024 at 6:57 AM, Joshua Katz said:

You read where? Obviously not in RONR.

can't link webiste, could be condo bylaws "If someone breaks a bylaw, the condo board will fine them (though they might get a warning first)." "When someone breaks a bylaw, the punishment is usually a fine. In extreme cases, though, bylaw-breakers can face imprisonment."

but that's not important now since it's not in the RONR.  So what kind of punishment is usually done?  Is it done to the position holder, the president, the executive board?

Also, just to nitpick: 

3.01 Membership is comprised of parents, legal guardians, and caregivers of students in any music program at the <Place> . Members are eligible to
hold positions on the General or Executive Board.

ARTICLE 5- QUORUM
A quorum for the purpose of voting at any meeting of the general membership and the Executive Board shall be 50% of the membership in attendance of said meeting.

except by recommendation of the executive board to the general membership, followed by a two thirds approval vote by the general membership and only if no other member desires nomination to the office.

So it looks like for the exception, it never specified that two thirds approval vote is by the membership in attendance (Quorum).  So technically the 2nd term vote wasn't complete because the members in attendance a few years ago is probably not even 15% of the members, right?

Sorry for the additional questions, just wanted to be iron clad - and thank you all for your valuable time.

[Josh Martin]

On 5/17/2024 at 3:05 PM, Guest Questioner said:

It is listed in the bylaws The officers of the association shall consist of the following elected positions: President, Vice President, Secretary and two Treasurers. Wonering if the same person can be  co-treasurer1 for two years, co-treasurer2 for two years to bypass the No Executive Board member shall hold the same office for more than two
consecutive years even though when Dustin was voted for the 2nd term (no other candidate running) it wasn't specified that he's running for co-treasurer2 position.  

No, this is nonsense. If the bylaws provide that there are "two treasurers," then those are quite clearly the "same office" for purposes of the rule that "No Executive Board member shall hold the same office for more than two consecutive years." You can't get around this rule by claiming there is a "Co-Treasurer 1" and "Co-Treasurer 2" position. That interpretation would be ludicrous as it would permit the same two people to serve as the society's Treasurers forever, by trading off with each other. That would defeat the point of the term limits rule.

Now, if you had a "Treasurer" and "Deputy Treasurer," that would be different. But if you simply have "two Treasurers," then if the bylaws provide that "No Executive Board member shall hold the same office for more than two consecutive years," then no one can serve as Treasurer for more than two consecutive years.

If the organization doesn't like this limit, then it's free to amend the bylaws to remove it, or to create exceptions, or a mechanism for its suspension, or whatever.

And in fact, you do have an exception already: "6.04 No Executive Board member shall hold the same office for more than two consecutive years except by recommendation of the executive board to the general membership, followed by a two thirds approval vote by the general membership and only if no other member desires nomination to the office."

Now, there is an interesting question of how the "if no other member desires nomination to the office" clause applies in this instance. I am inclined to think the most reasonable interpretation is that the exception is still applicable so long as there are no more than two candidates for the position of Treasurer.

On 5/15/2024 at 11:09 AM, Guest Guest Questioner said:

The position in question is a co-position. The existing Person has completed two terms of two years each (because after the first term, there were no other candidate, so person was voted to serve a new term). This will be the third term. One parent clarified that Person is only allowed IF there's no other candidate and the president said yes. On the elections meeting, another candidate decided to run for the co-position. Person was still allowed to be voted, a total of three people. Parent brought up the clarification about the vote. The president said the clarification was made after the vote, and the president said yes (but something like the president was busy or something in the mind or not fully whatever), so to make it clear, the president asked again if Person can be part of the candidates, and majority raised their hands. There was also an argument about being co-position, and that technically, Person can be co#1 1st term and then co#2 the 2nd term. Well is this now back to co#1 not violating anything because person "was" co#2?

It appears to me that, as I understand your bylaws, Dustin is not eligible for a third term.

This nonsense about "Co #1" and "Co #2" is absurd. That language appears nowhere in your bylaws.

On 5/15/2024 at 11:09 AM, Guest Guest Questioner said:

Bylaw:
13.01 The bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the members present at any general membership meeting..

I saw this afterwards. Does that make everything legitimate?

No. You certainly could have amended your bylaws, but you didn't. So the election is null and void, and Dustin is not eligible to serve unless and until the bylaws are amended (or until a break in service).

On 5/15/2024 at 5:44 PM, Guest Questioner said:

So in layman's term for both answers, they need to vote to change (amend) the bylaws first, THEN they can follow the now exempted/updated bylaw.

I think you understand correctly.

On 5/15/2024 at 8:36 PM, Guest Questioner said:

Also this is a nonprofit parent volunteer group for high school.  Who can overrule the executive board?  

The membership.

On 5/16/2024 at 4:53 PM, Guest Questioner said:

Added names to help follow along.  Some problem: if nobody else runs for the other positions, they get to keep them?  How to make general membership UNDERSTAND that the bylaw was broken - is there a section in Roberts Rules or Parliament that states no amount of voting can suspend the bylaw?

Well, I don't know that you will be able to persuade your membership or not, but yes, there is a citation to this effect.

"Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be suspended—no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may be—unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension, or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order as described in 2:14. However, a rule in the bylaws requiring that a vote—such as, for example, on the election of officers—be taken by (secret) ballot cannot be suspended so as to violate the secrecy of the members' votes unless the bylaws so provide (see also Voting by Ballot, 45:18–24). Nothing in a corporate charter can be suspended unless the charter or applicable law so provides." RONR (12th ed.) 25:7

On 5/16/2024 at 9:48 PM, Guest Questioner said:

I read that punishment can be a fine or imprisonment!

I don't know where you read that, but that seems very unlikely. It certainly isn't in RONR.

Fines cannot be imposed as a disciplinary penalty unless the bylaws so provide.

Imprisonment is not a penalty discussed in RONR, but I am generally inclined to think that this exceeds the authority of a private society.

On 5/16/2024 at 9:48 PM, Guest Questioner said:

Who will be punished?  All members on Executive board?

I don't know. That's up to your organization.

On 5/16/2024 at 9:48 PM, Guest Questioner said:

Can they just be asked to write an apology letter to the parents (for violating the bylaw twice, abusing power, conspiring to keep Gina out of the executive board twice, and just being bad parents), resign and a new set of Executive board be formed? 

In order to answer whether (and how) the board may be removed, we would need to know what, if anything, your bylaws say concerning removal. Failing that, please provide the exact wording used to define the term of office.

On 5/17/2024 at 3:05 PM, Guest Questioner said:

So it looks like for the exception, it never specified that two thirds approval vote is by the membership in attendance (Quorum).  So technically the 2nd term vote wasn't complete because the members in attendance a few years ago is probably not even 15% of the members, right?

Well, if you didn't have a quorum, yes, that will cause other problems.

[Atul Kapur]

On 5/16/2024 at 10:48 PM, Guest Questioner said:

I read that punishment can be a fine or imprisonment! 

 

On 5/17/2024 at 6:57 AM, Joshua Katz said:

You read where? Obviously not in RONR.

 

On 5/17/2024 at 12:34 PM, Guest Questioner said:

When someone breaks a bylaw, the punishment is usually a fine. In extreme cases, though, bylaw-breakers can face imprisonment."

The website that you link to is an insurance company website, and it appears that you are confusing municipal bylaws and condo bylaws.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/17/2024 at 4:05 PM, Guest Questioner said:

Also, just to nitpick: 

3.01 Membership is comprised of parents, legal guardians, and caregivers of students in any music program at the <Place> . Members are eligible to
hold positions on the General or Executive Board.

While we're nitpicking, "comprised of" is always incorrect.  To comprise means to be composed of, so the proper sentence should read:

3.01 Membership comprises parents, legal guardians....etc.

[Guest Questioner]

On 5/17/2024 at 6:06 PM, Josh Martin said:

Imprisonment is not a penalty discussed in RONR, but I am generally inclined to think that this exceeds the authority of a private society.

I don't know. That's up to your organization.

In order to answer whether (and how) the board may be removed, we would need to know what, if anything, your bylaws say concerning removal. Failing that, please provide the exact wording used to define the term of office.

Well, if you didn't have a quorum, yes, that will cause other problems.

To think that this current Executive board had the bylaws amended (with a lawyer, I think) last year...

6.06 Any officers may be removed from office whenever the best interests of ORG would be served by such removal. The following procedures shall be followed in order to remove any officer:

a. Any officer shall notify the officer proposed to be removed of the reasons for the proposed removal.
b. The officer proposed to be removed may do any of the following:
     i. Resign the position
     ii. Provide the Executive Board with any information for its consideration supporting the officer proposed for removal to be removed from office.

c. If the officer proposed to be removed does not resign, the Executive Board, upon majority vote of the remaining officers, may vote to remove the officer. The removal
will be effective upon the vote.
d. The removed officer’s replacement shall be determined by a vote of the membership at the next regular or special meeting of the Members, and the replacement
shall serve for the balance of the removed officer’s term.

6.07 General members may be removed at any time by a majority vote of the executive board, whenever the best interests of ORG would be served by such removal.

So no mention of removal due to violation of bylaw or what to do or how to determine who is responsible.  Is the president ultimately responsible?  A few on the board probably had the idea to make Dustin stay (to keep Gina out), made some legit sounding vote and everybody else (sheep) voted.

Ironically, they may plan to remove Gina because she doesn't jive with the rest...

[Josh Martin]

On 5/18/2024 at 2:01 AM, Guest Questioner said:

6.06 Any officers may be removed from office whenever the best interests of ORG would be served by such removal. The following procedures shall be followed in order to remove any officer:

a. Any officer shall notify the officer proposed to be removed of the reasons for the proposed removal.
b. The officer proposed to be removed may do any of the following:
     i. Resign the position
     ii. Provide the Executive Board with any information for its consideration supporting the officer proposed for removal to be removed from office.

c. If the officer proposed to be removed does not resign, the Executive Board, upon majority vote of the remaining officers, may vote to remove the officer. The removal
will be effective upon the vote.
d. The removed officer’s replacement shall be determined by a vote of the membership at the next regular or special meeting of the Members, and the replacement
shall serve for the balance of the removed officer’s term.

Well, then that answers your question. Unfortunately, it appears your bylaws reserve this power for the Executive Board.

So I would imagine your best bet is to elect different board members at the regular elections, and/or to amend the bylaws.

On 5/18/2024 at 2:01 AM, Guest Questioner said:

So no mention of removal due to violation of bylaw

No, but your bylaws use broad language in this matter, saying officers can be removed "whenever the best interests of ORG would be served by such removal." The organization may well determine it is best served by board members who follow the bylaws.

On 5/18/2024 at 2:01 AM, Guest Questioner said:

or what to do

It seems pretty explicit on "what to do" to me.

On 5/18/2024 at 2:01 AM, Guest Questioner said:

or how to determine who is responsible.  Is the president ultimately responsible?

I would imagine the persons authorized to remove board members (the Executive Board, in this case), would determine who is responsible.

[Guest Questioner]

On 5/18/2024 at 9:39 AM, Josh Martin said:

Well, then that answers your question. Unfortunately, it appears your bylaws reserve this power for the Executive Board.

So I would imagine your best bet is to elect different board members at the regular elections, and/or to amend the bylaws.

No, but your bylaws use broad language in this matter, saying officers can be removed "whenever the best interests of ORG would be served by such removal." The organization may well determine it is best served by board members who follow the bylaws.

It seems pretty explicit on "what to do" to me.

I would imagine the persons authorized to remove board members (the Executive Board, in this case), would determine who is responsible.

Thank you sir.  I'm sure my questions are asked and re-asked a few times.  Just trying to understand it in a layman's term.  I would imagine the Executive board pointing fingers at each other, or to make things simpler (and to save the friends at Executive board), the co-treasurer would resign, as he was not supposed to be voted.  But then Gina would not want to work with these horrible people.

[Josh Martin]

On 5/19/2024 at 12:10 AM, Guest Questioner said:

Thank you sir.  I'm sure my questions are asked and re-asked a few times.  Just trying to understand it in a layman's term.  I would imagine the Executive board pointing fingers at each other, or to make things simpler (and to save the friends at Executive board), the co-treasurer would resign, as he was not supposed to be voted.  But then Gina would not want to work with these horrible people.

Okay, well, best of luck to you with all of that. I've informed you of the relevant rules. I can't solve your organization's internal political problems.