Members in an organization I am involved in are attempting to impeach the President of the organization for negligence of duty.

The Constitution/Bylaws of this organization state the following:

Any member of [the Organization] has the right to bring formal charges against an officer in the case of misuse of authority or neglect of office. The member who is bringing the charges against the officer must submit a formal notice in writing to the Executive Board, at which point an impeachment hearing will be scheduled. At the impeachment hearing, the accused officer shall have the right to defend themselves. The impeachment proceedings will end with a vote of all voting members of the organization with a majority being 50% +1.

The President of the organization is normally the presiding officer at organization meetings. Under Robert's Rules of Order, the presiding officer does not have the right to vote unless it is in the event of a tie.

  1. If a presiding officer (in this case the President) wishes to participate in debate/defend themselves then they must remove themselves from the position of the Chair, correct?

  2. If the President gives the Chair to the Vice-President, is the Vice-President able to vote?

  3. If the President gives the Chair to the Vice-President, is the President able to vote?

I know that under better circumstances, it would be wise to look at the organization's bylaws for this information. However, the quote above is the only information relating to removal of an officer in the bylaws/constitution.

closed as off-topic by Brythan, SoylentGray, clem steredenn, lazarusL, gerrit Mar 23 '16 at 14:15

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question does not appear to be about governments, policies and political processes within the scope defined in the help center." – Brythan, SoylentGray, clem steredenn, lazarusL, gerrit
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because only those in your organization can answer this. – user1530 Dec 11 '15 at 5:24
  • This is more of a question for law.stackexchange.com. But if the bylaws do not explicitly mention an exception from the general voting rules when someone is being impeached, then the normal rules apply. – Philipp Dec 11 '15 at 11:28
  • 1
    I think it works at either place. It has a politics overlap as well. – SoylentGray Dec 11 '15 at 18:19
  • I'm voting to close this as unclear. The question text talks about an unnamed organization, but the senate-rules tag is used. It isn't clear what organization we are talking about. If this is a private organization, we would desire more information about their rules. – indigochild Mar 11 '16 at 18:17
  • If a single person is being impeached, they should not vote since it's a conflict of interest, although that's unenforceable unless you have a specific rule. – D M Jul 30 '17 at 20:19

The purpose of bylaws is that the organization gives itself rules for how to handle its internal decision making processes.

Any right to vote is derived from the bylaws. Also any restrictions on voting rights must be stated in the bylaws. So unless your bylaws have a clause which explicitly says that people are exempt from voting during their own impeachment, the normal voting rights apply.

Your quote states "The impeachment proceedings will end with a vote of all voting members of the organization". That means when the accused is also a voting member at that moment, they have the right to cast a vote for or against their own impeachment.

What you could do is propose an amendment to the bylaws before the impeachment process which fixes that hole by rewriting the above part to exclude the accused from the vote for impeachment.

  • Also, perfectly complaint with your rule that President has only tie breaking power. Roberts Rules do not have impeachment so it's bylaws only. You can motion to suspend the rules on his tie breaking vote to bypass this issue all together. Since he has the right to defense, he does not need to vacate the office to defend himself, thus issues 2 and 3 are moot points. Since it must pass by 50% + 1, than an even split could be declared failed to carry, without the President voting, as he is assumed to vote Nay to Impeach. If he didn't he could resign his chair+ – hszmv Jan 17 at 17:07
  • +Which then renders the point moot... you can't impeach someone once they leave the office. A decision in any other way is left intact. Even if it's 51% in favor, the President cannot cancel it as he is a tie breaker. Its a win by narrowest of margins, but a win none the less, and thus not a tie. I'd suggest assume the tie breaker is in play and let him vote in the 50-50 if it happens, then patch the rules to say that Impeachment resulting in a tie will assume the defendant will vote in his or her own favor and thus, render a 50-50 a defeat of the impeachment motion, regardless. – hszmv Jan 17 at 17:13

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .