Guest K_guest Posted January 17, 2011 at 12:51 AM Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 at 12:51 AM We recently learned that our president is not a legal member of our organization because he does not meet the membership requirements. To further complicate matters, our vice-president will be inactive for several weeks due to his being out of the country. (1) How do we go about relieving the president of his position and (2) until a new president is elected, who presides over meetings? Our bylaws do not cover either of these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 17, 2011 at 12:55 AM Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 at 12:55 AM We recently learned that our president is not a legal member of our organization because he does not meet the membership requirements. To further complicate matters, our vice-president will be inactive for several weeks due to his being out of the country. (1) How do we go about relieving the president of his position and (2) until a new president is elected, who presides over meetings? Our bylaws do not cover either of these issues.Check your bylaws carefully to make sure they say the president must be a member of the organization. RONR does not have any such rule. As long as a majority of the members voted for him, you may not have any valid reason to remove him, at least from the presidency. He might very well lose his membership in the organization, but your requirements are known only to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 17, 2011 at 12:58 AM Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 at 12:58 AM We recently learned that our president is not a legal member of our organization because he does not meet the membership requirements. To further complicate matters, our vice-president will be inactive for several weeks due to his being out of the country. (1) How do we go about relieving the president of his position and (2) until a new president is elected, who presides over meetings? Our bylaws do not cover either of these issues.If your president is no longer president, your vice-president is now your president. If he doesn't show up at a meeting, the secretary (or any member if the secretary is also absent) calls the meeting to order and conducts a brief election for a chair pro tem (a temporary presiding officer). You do this for each meeting until the president (the former vice-president) shows up.And you'll also need to fill the vacancy in the vice-president's office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 17, 2011 at 01:00 AM Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 at 01:00 AM Check your bylaws carefully to make sure they say the president must be a member of the organization. RONR does not have any such rule.But most organizations do. It seems a bit early to be hunting zebras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted January 17, 2011 at 01:22 AM Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 at 01:22 AM We recently learned that our president is not a legal member of our organization because he does not meet the membership requirements. No problem, since it violates no rule of Robert's Rules of Order for a lapsed member, or a former member, to serve as an officer of an organization.To further complicate matters, our vice-president will be inactive for several weeks due to his being out of the country. This may be a moot point, if your current president does run afoul of some other rule of yours.(1) How do we go about relieving the president of his position and (2) until a new president is elected, who presides over meetings? Our bylaws do not cover either of these issues.(1) You cannot remove a sitting president just because he is not a member of the organization, unless you have rules already in place which says otherwise. -- Q. Do you?(2.) A chairman pro tem is always a possible option where the regular chair, and where no vice president, are present. So this is a minor problem, not a major hurdle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest K_guest Posted January 17, 2011 at 02:00 AM Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 at 02:00 AM No problem, since it violates no rule of Robert's Rules of Order for a lapsed member, or a former member, to serve as an officer of an organization.This may be a moot point, if your current president does run afoul of some other rule of yours.(1) You cannot remove a sitting president just because he is not a member of the organization, unless you have rules already in place which says otherwise. -- Q. Do you?(2.) A chairman pro tem is always a possible option where the regular chair, and where no vice president, are present. So this is a minor problem, not a major hurdle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 17, 2011 at 02:15 AM Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 at 02:15 AM No problem, since it violates no rule of Robert's Rules of Order for a lapsed member, or a former member, to serve as an officer of an organization.And another zebra hunter joins in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 17, 2011 at 02:21 AM Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 at 02:21 AM But most organizations do. It seems a bit early to be hunting zebras.In my modest experience, many more organizations think they have that rule than actually do. When they examine the bylaws, they find it's not there, sometimes because the drafters of the bylaws assumed that the rule must be in RONR, or was something "everybody knows".In any case, it would be good if K_guest could confirm just what the bylaws requirements for holding this office are, as specified in the bylaws, as contrasted with the requirements for membership, nomination, election, or other irrelevancies. But presuming that the president is truly not eligible to hold the office, what are you suggesting as a remedy? The rule will not enforce itself. So, unless the president resigns voluntarily, I would think that a point of order, followed no doubt by an appeal, would be necessary to cause the VP to ascend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 17, 2011 at 02:35 AM Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 at 02:35 AM In my modest experience, many more organizations think they have that rule than actually do.That may be true.I'm just not so sure we should be so quick to assume that the person asking the question doesn't know what he's talking about. There seems to be a tendency towards condescension among some parliamentarians; a tendency which serves no useful purpose.I'm thinking of such comments as "You have no board", "Your board is powerless", and "Have you even read your bylaws?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted January 17, 2011 at 02:13 PM Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 at 02:13 PM There seems to be a tendency towards condescension among some parliamentarians; No way!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.