Resolution #1 – to clarify Article IV Board of Governors, Section 5. Removal.
This resolution was presented by the Board of Governors for consideration by the membership.
Discussion for Resolution #1 has now ended. Please see the Pro and Con summaries below.
If you have any questions, please contact the Home Office.
Wendy VanderMeulen – St-Albert, Ontario Canada
Understanding that there is a provision for extenuating circumstances, I agree with the change.
Michael Maltenfort – Chicago, IL United States
This seems like a sensible policy. It is important that we provide a mechanism to ensure that board members are carrying out their responsibilities. I’m glad to see that removal is not required by these conditions but merely a possibility.
Tom Rainer – Ocean View, DE USA
This resolution seems like a reasonable approach to ensuring that BOG members maintain active participation in their duties.
Casey Parker – Manteca, CA United States
I am in favor of the motion. I feel the extenuating circumstances people are talking about in the “Cons” is already cover in the motion “…without approved extenuating circumstances.” In the Bylaws you shouldn’t be extremely specific in the text. Otherwise you end up with an exception list that has to be maintained and you end up tying the hands of the BOG if the current “circumstance” is not on your list. Keep it simplified and let the BOG use their “due diligence” and common sense in making a decision.
Buddy Weaver – San Marcs, CA USA
I now question if the threshold for removal shouldn’t also include egregious acts that are in violation of CL Code of Ethics. What comes to mind is an individual who may be called upon for an ethics review, does not change behavior, yet still represents us as a board member.
Patty Greene – Monroe, NC, United States
I am in favor of this resolution. There are provisions to allow for extenuating circumstances, and the BOG and the home office are both able to extend grace and make decisions based on those circumstances. If someone is unwilling to perform the duties required, they should not be serving on the Board and there should be a way to have them removed. Initially, it should be a BOG member’s responsibility to let the chair and the home office know if they were going to be unavailable.
It is my opinion that if you are participating as a BOG member and you can not participating in the voting, then you should step down as a Board of Governor.
Ellen Müller – Müllheim, Baden-Württemberg Germany
I too believe if you are on the BOG you should participate and do your “job” that you’ve been voted for in order to represent the voters. Yet, I believe it is necessary to very clearly discribe exeptions like emergencies which will have to be prooven in a clearly given way.
Stephen Cole – Kirkland, WA United States
I support this motion. It is not an automatic expulsion as it allows for “approved extenuating circumstances.” However, it appears that it would still take a majority vote from the membership or 2/3rds vote of the BOG. Should this expulsion be automatic when one of the 5 things listed happen? I’m inclined to think yes and that this motion should be updated to be “part C.”
Lanny Weaklend – OMAHA, Nebraska United States
I support this amendment, recognizing that any removal action would still require a majority vote of the membership or a 2/3 majority vote of the BOG before removal takes place. This certainly allows for consideration of an illness or accident that might temporarily limit a BOG member from participating, but allows for anticipated recovery.
Deborah Carroll-Jones – Arlington, TX United States
As a former long-time Board member, I am in favor of this resolution. The response expectations for any BOG member used to be “understood;” it ought to be in clearly stated in writing for current and incoming/future members of the Board.
Masaharu Hiraga – 4-8-34, Honjo, Saitama Japan
Except for any emergency situations, the BOG should observe this being proposed this time. I want know how this resolution came up: were there any undesirable cases recently?
Jon Jones – Arlington, TX United States
I support the resolution.
Darrell Kalmbach – Portland, OR United States
I agree that if you missed two votes per calendar year you should be removed, When you signed up to run as a board member you should know that already, but if you have a family emergency or you’re hospitalized because of an accident then there should be some grace there.
Betsy Gotta – North Brunswick, NJ United States
I believe that there would be a thorough effort to confirm and approve the extenuating circumstances mentioned in the resolution. In my experience, members of the Board of Governors are not eager to remove a member of the BOG.
Harlan Kerr – San Francisco, CA United States
The resolution clearly allows for extenuating circumstances. This covers such things as illness and unexpected crises or situations.
Bill Eyler – Cathedral City, California United States
Greg Weber – Puyallup, WA United States
Fully in favor of adding verbiage to “removal” for failure to vote on two (2) Board of Governors’ ballots during a given business year (Convention to Convention). Board members should already know this when they sign up for the job.
Jeremy Butler – Virginia Beach, VA United States
Voting is a key part of any elected member of a governing body. Members elected to the BOG are expected to represent the wishes of their electors. Any member of the BOG not voting on matters before the BOG is not acting on behalf of their electors and therefore should no longer be holding that position.
John Norris – Rome, GA United States
I am in agreement to amend this resolution
Mike Turner – Wichita, Kansas United States
I wish to received some background information as to the circumstances that brought about this resolution.
Bobby Keefe – Raiford, FL United States
It is my opinion that if you are on the board and not participating you should not be on the board.
Dave Eno – Preble, NY United States
I believe that a board member of any organization that doesn’t participate by voting, notwithstanding an emergency, should be removed from their position.
Victor Diller – Apple Valley, MN United States
In today’s world with the internet, I see no reason for someone to not vote. Unless they are very sick or had an accident. But that may be a reason to miss one vote but certainly not two times. So I am in favor of the resolution change.
Patrick McBride – Grand Junction, CO United States
This change sounds very reasonable to me and I would support the change.
Jeff Priest – Brantford, ON Canada
I believe that BOG members should be responsible to reply to ALL ballots, even if it is to abstain. This resolution makes sense and surprises me that it is only now being put in place.
Sharon Baldwin – Thomasville, NC United States
Mike has a valid point. A family member would have to let the board know of problems, and not everyone has family involved in their square dance careers. Maybe contacting the board member to ascertain the problem before removal could be added.
Lanny Beam – Sioux Falls, SD United States
I believe that a majority of the times a person should be able to vote and if they don’t participate they should be removed. However I also believe there may be extenuating circumstances, such as those Mike Sikorsky outlined, and I believe there needs to be provisions by which removal from the board is not a mandate.
Dan & Kathy Koft – York, PA United States
This is too strictly written. I suggest that: Should a member of the Callerlab BOG not vote in 2 voting measures during their tenure on the BOG, the Callerlab home office shall investigate to determine if there are extenuating circumstances that caused the missed votes. Should there be no such circumstances, the balance of the BOG shall be called to vote for the removal of the non-voting BOG member. Validity of the circumstances presented may be left to the discretion of the Home office. Once an investigation is complete, the results shall be reported to the entire BOG.
Patrick McBride – Grand Junction, CO United States
Mike Sikorsky brings up a very good point and one I had not considered. There should be some provision for extenuating circumstances that the BOG needs to consider before removing a member. Of course, that puts the onus on the BOG to decide just what extenuating circumstances are. My two cents worth is that the only circumstance would be a medical one. It is a tough call.
Larry Kanniard, Sr. – Wyoming, DE United States
If extenuating circumstances prevent a board member from voting, this should be taken into consideration and noted for the future.
Mike Sikorsky – Apache Junction, AZ United States
I oppose this motion. Personally, I missed several votes last summer because I was in the hospital in a 20-day coma and then too sick for the following two weeks to do any kind of business. I could have been easily voted off the board. This amendment needs to be amended to say the board should do their due diligence and discover if there are any extenuating circumstances regarding missed votes. Mike Sikorsky