Legislation: Removal of Officers

[neacurhdirector]

Hi All,

One of the pieces of legislation that we did not get to discuss at NEACURH 2006 was a piece that I had co-authored concerning the removal of officers in NEACURH. I wanted to post some background on the piece and the actual legislation on the Forum, so that people could give me feedback. We will definitely be considering this at Mini No-Frills, so it's important to give feedback now.

My motivation for writing this legislation was the turnover that NEACURH saw in two of our Associate Directors this year. While both realized that the positions were not good fits for them at the present time (and subsequently resigned), there was the potential that there could have been tension between myself as Director, you all as the NCCs, and the person holding the position. Especially in the case of the finance officer, there was potential for some serious issues if there had not been a change in the officer (and you all have seen legislation correcting some of those problems already this year).

Currently, the only recourse in such a situation would be to remove the officer via mail ballot (according to the NEACURH Bylaws). However, this process could take 30-45 days to complete, which leaves NEACURH crippled and potentially in a very bad position where an officer who is not doing their job could have access to the NEACURH bank accounts for over a month before they were removed.

This legislation is designed to correct this problem, consistent with Robert's Rules and NACURH Policy, to allow the removal of officers during an official NEACURH business meeting (i.e. at a conference). This process would still allow the safeguarding of member school rights because of the consistently high percentage of our schools that are required to be in attendance and voting on such a motion. The legislation also leaves in place the current "removal by mail" policy, so that an officer can be removed outside of a business meeting.

Please find the legislation below. Note that it is a change to the NEACURH Bylaws, not the Policy Book. I look forward to your questions and feedback.

Rockin' the Moose,

Jordan

----------

Whereas, the NEACURH Bylaws allow for the removal of officers with a 2/3 majority of member NCCs,

Whereas, more than 2/3 of member institutions traditionally attend NEACURH and Mini No-Frills conferences,

Whereas, the NEACURH Bylaws currently do not allow NCCs to take action on a motion to remove an officer (in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised) during an official NCC Business Meeting,

Whereas, compelling circumstances or flagrant misconduct of an officer may require immediate action,

Whereas, the ultimate control over the future of NEACURH should remain with the NCCs at all times,


Therefore, Be it Resolved That, There shall be an amendment to the NEACURH Bylaws, Article VII, Section One, striking “Any elected officer may be removed by the following procedure,” and,

Therefore, Be it Further Resolved That, there shall be an amendment to the NEACURH Bylaws, Article VII, Section One, inserting “The following procedure shall be used to remove officers outside of an official NEACURH Business Meeting” and,

Therefore, Be it Further Resolved That, there shall be an amendment to the NEACURH Bylaws, Article VII, inserting
“Section 2
The following procedure shall be used to remove officers during an official NEACURH Business Meeting:
A. A motion to remove an officer must be duly made and seconded by voting members. The motion may only name one officer to be removed.
B. The Regional Director shall serve as chair of any meeting to remove an officer, unless the motion is to remove the Regional Director.
1. In such cases, the order of succession should be followed to determine which elected officer should chair the meeting during the proceedings.
2. No elected officer named in the motion to remove shall chair the meeting during the proceedings.
C. The Regional Advisor shall explain the protocol for removal of an officer before any further action is taken.
1. If the Regional Advisor is named in the motion to remove, the Regional Director shall explain the protocol.
2. If the Regional Advisor is named in the motion to remove, the Regional Director shall appoint an interim advisor to serve during the proceedings.
D. The voting members who made the motion shall be allowed to explain the motivation behind the motion.
E. The officer named in the motion to remove shall be allowed to speak before a vote is taken.
F. A short recess shall occur before the vote to allow NCCs to consult with their RHA advisors should they chose to do so.
G. A 2/3 majority of the voting institutions (not merely those present at the business meeting) shall be needed for removal.” and,

Therefore, Be it Finally Resolved That, per NEACURH Bylaws, Article X, Section 2, this change shall become effective immediately.

[AlexMC]

This is a terrific piece of legislation Jordan. Though we hope not to ever have to remove any member on the RBD from office, I think it's necessary to address such an issue, considering certain events that took place just this year. I know I was a little concerned when I read Avi's legislation to reallocate funds to different parts of the budget in order to rectify the poor decisions of the former ADAF, and had even expressed to you via email NEACURH's need to hold members on the RBD more accountable for their actions.

Although this legislation tackles the actions needed to remove an officer, I'm wondering if there's anything NEACURH could do to try and prevent having to remove an officer in the first place. You mentioned that two ADs this year "realized that the positions were not good fits for them at the present time," what was it that they overlooked when bidding for their positions? I think gathering feedback from those two ADs would be a good start.

Also, concerning the former ADAF, how would us NCCs have ever noticed any unethical transactions he/she was making? How can we be certain that future ADAFs don't make the same judgements? I'm not sure if NEACURH already does this, but what are your thoughts about having the ADAF send us some sort of financial report so that interested NCCs can see what is being spent and where (similar to how businesses disclose financial statements to shareholders and the public)?

I think this legislation is only a component to a larger issue about the roles and responsibilities of officers that will eventually need to be discussed.

Great job Jordan!

[adafneacurh]

Alex,

I can answer the final part of that. Currently I'm sending out monthly updated budgets (with an explanation). While I understand that this can be kinda moot of the ADAF in question is lying on the budget, its one small step to start with. I'm going to probably present this as legislation at Minis to require budget updates from the ADAF monthly.

As too the rest, question the potential RBD members as hard as you can. Ask the tough stuff that you would normally be afraid to ask. Make sure the people you elect are in fact theright ones for the job.

-Avi

[neacurhdirector]

Hey Alex,

Thanks for the positive feedback on the legislation.

I think you raised some great questions about how the NEACURH RBD works in general. It is first and foremost the job of the Regional Director and Regional Advisor to oversee the members of the RBD. We, in conjunction with on-campus advisors/mentors, are the first line of accountability for members of the RBD. Without going into specifics of this year, each of these people were involved in helping to call to account the members of the RBD. That's what we're here for, and we try to deal with things internally. Often times, a little guidance and direction from the Director and Advisor can help get RBD members back on track.

In the specific case of finances, NEACURH's ADAF submits monthly financial reports (very detailed!) to the Regional Director, Regional Advisor, the National Associate for Finance, and the National Advisor. These four additional officers review the financial transactions of the past month and the actions of the ADAF to look for errors or anything else that could be suspect. This is the biggest check against any financial wrongdoing. The flags came this year when those monthly reports were not being submitted on time. It was also those same reports that eventually revealed the other problems.

If at any point there became a problem (financially or otherwise) that prevented an officer from fulfilling their duties and serving NEACURH best, it would be the responsibility of the Regional Director or the RBD to bring those matters to the NCCs. This is not to say, however, that the NCCs themselves should not be asking questions and holding RBD members accountable too. It is really a joint effort. Sometimes it is just easier, however, for the Director to see things from the inside and bring them to the attention of the NCCs if things get out of hand.

Hopefully that helps answer your question. Keep the questions and feedback coming!

Rockin' the Moose,

Jordan

[AlexMC]

Thanks guys!