defacto officer removal

[Guest Pimlico]

the chair of one of our town committees is under attack due to some new committee members that just came on board and want her replaced. i am a committee member and support the chair. We have no by-laws and we have no terms for our officers. Some on the committee are going to make a motion to elect a new chair at our next meeting  and they are saying that RONR says that a new officer term starts immediately upon election. Robert's also says an officer cannot be removed from office without cause and due process.  How is the proposed process of ousting the existing chair even allowed per RONR? Wouldn't the election and immediate assumption of the chair by the new chair be in essence a defacto removal of an officer without due process? Please help.

[Joshua Katz]

On 5/27/2024 at 10:47 AM, Guest Pimlico said:

We have no by-laws and we have no terms for our officers.

How in the past have terms ended?

[Guest Pimlico]

this is a town special  committee to build a new building and we have been in operations for just two years; we have never done this before

[Guest Pimlico]

the is a specially appointed town committee charged with building a new building; we have only been in operation for two years now and have never had to have elections. our only election was our first meeting and it is understood in town that officers of a building committee remain so until the project is completed----about six years. we've never had a term to end, therefore.

[Joshua Katz]

Given that you have no bylaws, and no parliamentary authority, I'm not sure how many rules actually apply to you. Since you also have no cusoms, I find it equally persuasive that the body should be free to choose its officers (akin to when bylaws have a provision that officers serve a number of years or until their successors are elected) and that it should require some sort of disciplinary procedure to remove an officer (akin to the process when there is only a fixed term). Therefore, until you have bylaws, I think it's really a question for your members to decide. Raise a point of order, the chair will probably rule it well-taken, someone will appeal, and the body will decide. For the future, I'd adopt bylaws so the answer is known.

[Guest Pimlico]

maybe I should have said this earlier--the town code requires us to use RONR; does this make a difference?

[Josh Martin]

On 5/27/2024 at 12:47 PM, Guest Pimlico said:

Some on the committee are going to make a motion to elect a new chair at our next meeting  and they are saying that RONR says that a new officer term starts immediately upon election. Robert's also says an officer cannot be removed from office without cause and due process. Wouldn't the election and immediate assumption of the chair by the new chair be in essence a defacto removal of an officer without due process?

1.) That's not necessarily correct. It depends on how the term of office is defined. See RONR (12th ed.) 62:16.

2.) Committee chairs aren't officers. This is what RONR says pertaining to removal or replacement of committee members and it would, in my view, also be applicable to committee chairs.

"Unless the bylaws or other governing rules expressly provide that committee members shall serve “… and until their successors are chosen” or for a fixed period, as “… for a term of two years” (in which case the procedure for their removal or replacement is the same as that for officers described in the second bulleted item in 62:16), committee members (including the chairman) may be removed or replaced as follows: If appointment was as provided in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), or (e) above, the removal or replacement of a committee member requires the same vote as for any other motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. If appointment was by the president acting alone under paragraph (d), he may remove or replace committee members by his own act (see 13:23)." RONR (12th ed.) 50:14

Now, I am inclined to agree with you that you can't remove a chair during their term simply by electing a new one. Whether there's due process or not, you have to somehow specify that the current chair is removed, because you can't elect someone to a position that is already filled. The members are correct that the new committee chair's term starts immediately upon election, but they need to deal with the current chair first.

On 5/27/2024 at 4:26 PM, Guest Pimlico said:

the is a specially appointed town committee charged with building a new building; we have only been in operation for two years now and have never had to have elections. our only election was our first meeting and it is understood in town that officers of a building committee remain so until the project is completed----about six years. we've never had a term to end, therefore.

Assuming the committee was empowered to elect its own chair, and assuming in the rules establishing the committee establishes a fixed term length, it seems to me the committee is free to remove its chair at any time it wishes by a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership (of the committee), or a majority vote with previous notice.

If the motion to remove is successful, then the committee can then proceed to elect a new chair who will take office immediately.

On 5/27/2024 at 4:39 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Given that you have no bylaws, and no parliamentary authority, I'm not sure how many rules actually apply to you. Since you also have no cusoms, I find it equally persuasive that the body should be free to choose its officers (akin to when bylaws have a provision that officers serve a number of years or until their successors are elected) and that it should require some sort of disciplinary procedure to remove an officer (akin to the process when there is only a fixed term). Therefore, until you have bylaws, I think it's really a question for your members to decide. Raise a point of order, the chair will probably rule it well-taken, someone will appeal, and the body will decide. For the future, I'd adopt bylaws so the answer is known.

Why would a committee need bylaws?

My understanding is that this is a committee of a local government, and the superior body presumably has its own rules (although they may well be silent on this particular matter).

On 5/27/2024 at 4:58 PM, Guest Pimlico said:

maybe I should have said this earlier--the town code requires us to use RONR; does this make a difference?

No, because RONR doesn't say what you think it does. Committee chairs aren't officers, and due process is typically not required to remove committee chairs.

Edited May 28, 2024 at 01:18 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

Who appointed the chair of this committee in the first place and to whom does the committee report?

[Joshua Katz]

On 5/28/2024 at 6:17 AM, Josh Martin said:

Why would a committee need bylaws?

My understanding is that this is a committee of a local government, and the superior body presumably has its own rules (although they may well be silent on this particular matter).

On 5/27/2024 at 2:58 PM, Guest Pimlico said:

I assumed it was a committee more in a the nature of a governing body. If it is a true committee of a parent assembly, it should look to the bylaws or other governing rules of the parent organization. When I served on the planning commission, we had bylaws.

[Richard Brown]

I think we need more information about just what this “Committee“ really is and how it was created. It might be more in the nature of a board than a committee. I also believe this might be more of a legal question than a parliamentary one and that the local town charter and ordinances might enter into the picture as well as state law provisions  

[Josh Martin]

On 5/28/2024 at 7:56 PM, Joshua Katz said:

I assumed it was a committee more in a the nature of a governing body. If it is a true committee of a parent assembly, it should look to the bylaws or other governing rules of the parent organization. When I served on the planning commission, we had bylaws.

You raise a fair point. I had assumed this to be in the nature of a committee, but you may be correct it is more in the nature of a board.

[Guest considered AD HOCK]

On 5/29/2024 at 10:39 AM, Josh Martin said:

You raise a fair point. I had assumed this to be in the nature of a committee, but you may be correct it is more in the nature of a board.

would they be considered ad hock

 

[Gary Novosielski]

Ad hoc (not hock) refers to something created for one specific purpose.  This describes a Special or Select Committee.  It would not describe a standing committee nor a board.

[Josh Martin]

On 6/12/2024 at 3:49 PM, Guest considered AD HOCK said:

would they be considered ad hock

I think this is indeed a "special" or "ad hoc" committee, based upon the statement that "the is a specially appointed town committee charged with building a new building."

However, I do not think this fact matters for purposes of answering the original question.