HELP!!!! SAVE THE PRESIDENT!!

[scarlett]

question 1

During a monthly officers meeting - the president was absent and the vp was presiding - a motion was made to suspend the president for 30 days for "conduct unbecoming an officer" and was passed. Is this really legal? 1) our bylaws do not address displinary acts regarding officers, nontheless the president (just members) 2) Our bylaws state that any findings will be presented to the body(memebership) for action. Since we do not have meeeting in the summer, my opinion is that the suspension cannot take effect until it is brought to the body.

question 2

if the president is not present at the time an officers meeting starts and the vice president is presiding, does the president take over when he arrives?

question 3

if the vice president is unaware of how to run a meeting regarding not knowing that a motion can be "tabled" does it make the meeting null and void.

appreciate ANY feedback

- out to save the president

[Kim Goldsworthy]

question 1

A motion was made to suspend the president for 30 days for "conduct unbecoming an officer" and was passed. Is this really legal?

question 2

If the president is not present at the time an officers meeting starts and the vice president is presiding, does the president take over when he arrives?

question 3

If the vice president is unaware of how to run a meeting regarding not knowing that a motion can be "tabled" does it make the meeting null and void.

1. If you are asking about Robert's Rules of order, then the answer is "No, you cannot spontaneously suspend an officer, assuming the 'conduct' was not performed in that very same meeting." If you asking about compliance with your own bylaws, then only the general membership can answer that question.

2. Yes, P takes over when P arrives.

3. No. Incompetence of the chair does not penalize the members. You can always elect a chair pro tem (someone who knows what he is doing). It is up to the members, via points of order and via appeals, to catch parliamentary errors and to decide parliamentary questions.

[scarlett]

Thank you so much for responding! i am a first timer with this stuff!

so would the officer's meeting be considered null and void since the president was not allowed to take over? or that the charges against him were brought up and acted upon in the same meeting without going to the membership?

how unethical would it be to "post" the "outrage" to the membership to say 15 memebers are needed to call a "special" meeting?

again MUCH thanks!

[hmtcastle]

During a monthly officers meeting . . .

For one thing, the officers would have to constitute a body (usually) defined in the bylaws. For example, a board of directors or an executive committee. Do they?

If not, a group of officers getting together can't take any action as a group.

[scarlett]

yes. this was at a montly officers meeting. Only a couple of the "evil" officers knew that discplinary charges were even being brought up. (the president didnt know) The president then walks in to the meeting and wants to take over, but is then told he is being brought up on charges and is unable to. when it went to a vote some (including) myself didn't know the motion could be "tabled". It was very apparent that these few officers took advantage of the meeting and it was a personal attack on the president.

Now it takes 7 officers to call a special meeting in order to review the "mistake" or try and make this suspension null and void. I thought since it never went to the body the suspension would be lifted until that memebership meeting. since again, it states in our bylaws that the board can present its findings to the membership for action.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

So would the officer's meeting be considered null and void since the president was not allowed to take over?

Or that the charges against him were brought up and acted upon in the same meeting without going to the membership?

How unethical would it be to "post" the "outrage" to the membership to say 15 members are needed to call a "special" meeting?

You seem to focus on one issue - "Is the meeting null and void because of who presided, or who didn't preside?"

That is a no-brainer. - No proper meeting suddenly becomes "null and void" merely based on who ended up with the gavel.

Example: If the attending members chose to have Vice President (Col.) Mustard preside instead of the regular chair, President (Mrs.) Peacock, that minor fact won't change a properly-called, quorate meeting into a nullity.

So stop worrying about whether the meeting is null and void. - No attendee or non-attendee will change a meeting's status from legitimate to illegitimate.

• Attendance or non-attendance is not a factor. (Assuming a quorum was present.)

• Who got to chair the meeting, or who didn't get to chair the meeting, is not a factor.

[scarlett]

yes- i know. sorry to be focused on that one point. I feel as if i am reaching... GOD I wish that officers meeting never happened. I am hoping we can have the special meeting at the very least to prove the suspension doesn't take affect til the members meeting later in the year.

[hmtcastle]

yes. this was at a montly officers meeting.

Yes, but is this group of officers given a name? Is it, for example, a board? an executive committee? Or do your bylaws simply say, for example, that the officers meet once a month and that seven officers constitute a quorum and that, at such a meeting, the officers are authorized to . . .

It seems a bit unusual but not, I suppose, impossible.

[scarlett]

yes. we refer to it has the board.. yes, the bylaws state that the officer's will meet once a month (typically the week after the membership meeting) 7 officers is considered a quorum, but in a "special meeting" circumstance we need to have 7 officers agree that a meeting is necessary.

[Mr. J!]

...if the vice president is unaware of how to run a meeting regarding not knowing that a motion can be "tabled" does it make the meeting null and void.

Absolutely not. I would in fact prefer a chairman who had no idea a motion can be "tabled" if he was easily trainable in the rules regarding "Lay on the Table"

[hmtcastle]

yes. we refer to it has the board.. yes, the bylaws state that the officer's will meet once a month (typically the week after the membership meeting)

It may be a minor semantic point but you might want to amend your bylaws so that it's the board, and not the officers, that meet once a month.

[scarlett]

the officers make up the board and we do have monthly meetings even thru the summer. Problem is the board has some really evil people on it.

[Weldon Merritt]

I believe Mr. Mountcastle's point is that the officers are just a group of people; the board, if one is defined in the byalws, is an entity that is distinct from the indivisual that happen to be members of it. Even if the officers comprise 100% of the board members, the two terms are not necessarilly synonymous.

[scarlett]

oh ok. I see your point. tryng really hard to understand all of this. thanks you for the comments!

[Gary c Tesser]

oh ok. I see your point. trying really hard to understand all of this. thanks you for the comments!

Just wondering,

I suspect that part of the reason the responses are all over the place is that what's going on is far from clear.

1. ""7 officers is considered a quorum, but in a "special meeting" circumstance we need to have 7 officers agree that a meeting is necessary."

-- Do the bylaws really say this?

2. Never mind about "tabling" (ouch, as Mr J implied) -- why did the officers vote in favor of the suspension?

3. Do the bylaws really give the board the authority to discipline its officer-members? (I read "our bylaws do not address displinary acts regarding officers," but some other clause might, such as one saying the board "shall have full power and authority over the affairs of the society" (RONR, 10th Ed, p. 560), or something like it.) If not, THAT's what would render the suspension (not the meeting) null and void.

4. Or, do the bylaws actually limit the board to "any findings will be presented to the body (membership) for action"? In that case, of course the board would not have the power to suspend anyone. But in that case, I must ask, why bother having a board?

5. If the board meeting were held under Executive Session (the secrecy of what went on is required), it would be completely unethical for anyone to divulge anything, EXCEPT what the meeting (or a subsequent meeting) decided to divulge. If the meeting were not under this cloak of confidentiality, you can tell anyone and everyone you want. (Come to think of it, if the proceedings were during executive session, you shouldn't even have posted it here -- notwithstanding your anonymity here, it's the principle -- and it's my impression that you're trying to take and maintain a principled position.)

For starters. I strongly suggest, please, please, "just wondering": get yourself a copy of RONR - In Brief, and read it NOW. Do Not Put It Off. It'll take maybe an hour or two (the first time). Then grab some of your allies and have them read it, do not put it off: tie them down if you need to, afterwards they'll thank you.