Removing the President

[Guest Lisa]

If the President is not performing his duties as defined and is not addressing issues properly and has indicated he will resign, is there a way to remove him?

[Chris Harrison]

If the President is not performing his duties as defined and is not addressing issues properly and has indicated he will resign, is there a way to remove him?

See FAQ #20.

[David A Foulkes]

If the President is not performing his duties as defined and is not addressing issues properly and has indicated he will resign, is there a way to remove him?

Or just let him resign. Unless you meant he indicated that he will not resign?

[hmtcastle]

Or just let him resign. Unless you meant he indicated that he will not resign?

Or not indicated he will resign.

I'm willing to bet that Guest_Lisa fell into our dreaded not-hole and, as a guest, didn't have the option of correcting it.

[David A Foulkes]

A-yuh.

[cruserla1]

Does the President get to vote on his own removal from office? Our bylaws state we can remove any officer through a majority vote of the board of directors.

[Josh Martin]

Does the President get to vote on his own removal from office? Our bylaws state we can remove any officer through a majority vote of the board of directors.

The President should not vote on his own removal, but he cannot be prevented from voting.

[hmtcastle]

The President should not vote on his own removal, but he cannot be prevented from voting.

Without challenging the correctness of Mr. Martin's reply, I'm wondering why it's okay to vote for oneself in an election, but not to vote against one's removal from office.

[Gary Novosielski]

Without challenging the correctness of Mr. Martin's reply, I'm wondering why it's okay to vote for oneself in an election, but not to vote against one's removal from office.

... or, for that matter, in favor of it.

And consider the logical extension: Suppose TWO members are accused of conspiring to do something, and it is moved to remove them both. Should neither of them vote on the motion?

Now suppose all BUT two members are accused (presumably by the remaining two) of some joint unbefitting conduct . Should none of the accused (probably a majority of the assembly) be permitted to opine on the question of their own departure?

I know this could be solved by moving each removal individually, which is why I chose a conspiracy charge, where an acquittal of one party would seem to absolve the other as well. And yes, there is the rule that if the motion concerns multiple people, the sanction against voting is lifted. But it's an interesting question nonetheless.

[Josh Martin]

Without challenging the correctness of Mr. Martin's reply, I'm wondering why it's okay to vote for oneself in an election, but not to vote against one's removal from office.

In the case of an election, the question is not specifically on "Should Mr. X be elected?" Rather, the question is about who should be elected to the position. Thus, as RONR says, it is not improper for Mr. X to vote for himself for a position to which other members are generally eligible. But in the case of removal, the question is specifically on "Should Mr. X be removed?" Therefore, it is a question of direct personal interest not in common with other members.

And consider the logical extension: Suppose TWO members are accused of conspiring to do something, and it is moved to remove them both. Should neither of them vote on the motion?

Now suppose all BUT two members are accused (presumably by the remaining two) of some joint unbefitting conduct . Should none of the accused (probably a majority of the assembly) be permitted to opine on the question of their own departure?

I know this could be solved by moving each removal individually, which is why I chose a conspiracy charge, where an acquittal of one party would seem to absolve the other as well. And yes, there is the rule that if the motion concerns multiple people, the sanction against voting is lifted. But it's an interesting question nonetheless.

As for the question of multiple members involved in charges, RONR addresses this as well, and I think some common sense must be applied here. Clearly a question involving discipline against a majority of the members should not be a reason to abstain, as this would allow a minority to expel a majority of the assembly. On the other hand, I'm not sure it's appropriate to vote on your own removal just because one other person is involved as well. I also agree, however, that as much as possible, members should be tried individually, in order to allow for a full investigation and trial and to give deference to the particular facts of each individual case.