removal of president

[jbhhawaii@gmail.com]

I posted awhile ago as "gardener" and decided I might have lots to learn here on behalf of our organization, so I registered to be a member. Thank you for those of you who replied to my other post. Based on your response we will have two of our resigned people assume their duties again. I do like omelets and don't mind breaking eggs.

I have a copy of 10th edition in hand, but still a bit confused, and need fine tuning as we really try hard to remove a very bad president. I asked this one in my gardener posting also:

Our rules say, "Garden officers shall serve a term of office no longer than one year and shall not serve consecutive terms." It has been 9 mos of idiocy and egregious behavior on the part of our president. Can we just make a motion to remove him and replace him since it says "no longer than"

There are no rules about replacement or nominations and elections

Mahalo

[hmtcastle]

Can we just make a motion to remove him and replace him since it says "no longer than"

The phrase "no longer than" is not relevant to removal from office before the term is up.

You can remove an officer the easy way (rescinding the election) or the hard way (formal charges, an investigation, and a trial). FAQ #20 should get you started but you'll need to read Chapter XX as well.

And welcome to the forum. The best advice I can give is to check back in a day or two. The first replies may be accurate but it's always good to get a second (or third or fourth) opinion.

[jbhhawaii@gmail.com]

Thanks for the welcome.

We are ready and willing to rescind the election immediately!

Chapter XX, line 34 states "If the bylaws provide that officers shall serve "for ___ years or until their successors are elected," the election of the officer in question can be rescinded and a successor can thereafter be elected for the remainder of the term.

I have been reading that as an entire sentence, officers shall serve "for ___ years or until their successors are elected,"

Are you saying that if either/OR is the phraseology: "Officers shall serve for no longer than one year." OR "Officers shall serve until their successors are elected" Then we can rescind?

This is Terrific!

Also do we have to recind all the people who were elected at that time. The entire election? That would be ok too.

[hmtcastle]

I have been reading that as an entire sentence, officers shall serve "for ___ years or until their successors are elected,"

Are you saying that if either/OR is the phraseology: "Officers shall serve for no longer than one year." OR "Officers shall serve until their successors are elected" Then we can rescind?

No, you're correct to read it as an entire sentence.

[jbhhawaii@gmail.com]

Aw shucks! Well, as no one has the energy for the trial route and his term would be up by then anyway, it looks like we wait him out. Perhaps our VP and treasurer going back in will confuse him enough that it will preoccupy him. On the other hand, I just got an email that our City and County manager of all the community gardens might just say we cannot have any meetings until his term is up. Not exactly according to Hoyle, er um Robert, but the manager trumps us all I suppose and if it works, well then...

We are really going to get a grip on these by laws for next year!

[Kim Goldsworthy]

"Officers shall serve for

no longer than

one year."

Don't add words to RONR.

You won't find the phrase "no longer than" anywhere in Chapter XX Section 61 of RONR.

I dare say, by your organization adding this phrase, your organization has introduced an ambiguity. There is now a possible interpretation where the term can be any length, but only with a limit imposed on its maximum length.

E.g., one week, one day, one hour, one minute, etc., are all "no longer than" one year.

[Gary Novosielski]

Aw shucks! Well, as no one has the energy for the trial route and his term would be up by then anyway, it looks like we wait him out. Perhaps our VP and treasurer going back in will confuse him enough that it will preoccupy him. On the other hand, I just got an email that our City and County manager of all the community gardens might just say we cannot have any meetings until his term is up. Not exactly according to Hoyle, er um Robert, but the manager trumps us all I suppose and if it works, well then...

We are really going to get a grip on these by laws for next year!

There are a lot of things you can do, given enough time. But if you really do have a majority on your side, there is one easy tactic that a lot of societies overlook in the interim. Familiarize yourself with the motion "to Appeal from the Decision of the Chair".

Then, whenever the president does something that is beyond the powers granted by the bylaws, someone (perhaps you) should raise a point of order. And when the president rules the point of order as not well taken, you say "I appeal from the decision of the chair". Have a seconder trained, ready, and waiting to say "second" whenever he hears you say that.

It only takes a majority to overrule the chair on any ruling.

Once the membership is prepared to stand up on its hind legs and not let the chair get away with bullying behavior, the jig is up. The only reason presidents get away with bullying is that nobody knows how easily they can be stopped.

I have seen a tyrannical chair become confused, flustered, frustrated enough to resign (and leave in a huff) after a single meeting of such treatment.

[hmtcastle]

It only takes a majority to overrule the chair on any ruling.

But it's a peculiar majority.

[jbhhawaii@gmail.com]

Indeed it is a peculiar majority and difficult to energize for a number of reasons: language barriers, fear of prez and their perception that he can take away their gardens, and just a non-confrontational culture.

We had our meeting and the City and County had reps at the meeting. They strongly asked us not to have the previous resigned officers withdraw their resignations since they had resigned because of conflict with the prez. The city people also removed the illegal appointees the president had put in place as VP and Treasurer. It leaves us without VP or Treasurer. The manager of city gardens has decided to put his name on the bank account with the prez and no expenditures can be made without his approval. We were supposed to have had a two signature checking system the prez had ignored.

While none of this follows the rules of this organization, it does give us some support for dealing with this tyrant for the next two months. They will provide us with a person at our next two meetings to make sure our nomination process goes smoothly in November and that our election process goes well in Dec. (every election or vote for anything under this man has had him require we ID ourselves on ballots! Needless to say that strategy caused upheaval and unsuccessful voting) The City rep did say she had never seen so many people linked to this website on their Blackberries or carrying around a variety of Robert's Rules books.

Hopefully, the upcoming agendas will be simple and we will use the above mentioned strategy of overruling the prez as well as laying on the table as many items on the agendas as possible, and moving to adjourn as soon as possible. Some of us have a meeting set up to make suggested by laws changes as soon as we can get them processed. We will be using the 10th edition for guidance and actual verbiage.

(Good thing we are only a garden association. Lord help us if it was any more significant or complex!) Thank you all. Will be back for more advice as we move ahead.

[jbhhawaii@gmail.com]

Tip: click inside this box to load the editor

[hmtcastle]

Tip: click inside this box to load the editor

I think the editor may already be loaded.

[Gary Novosielski]

But it's a peculiar majority.

Indeed it is. In fact I believe it is unique. It is the only instance where a tie vote affirms the question.

But that's an artifact of the traditional way of phrasing it: "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" The actual motion is to appeal, and the actual underlying question is whether the chair should be overruled. The special tie-vote rule assures that it will take a clear majority to overrule the chair's decision, which is presumed correct until proven bogus.

[hmtcastle]

But that's an artifact of the traditional way of phrasing it: "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?"

Which sounds suspiciously like a motion whose effect could be achieved by doing nothing.