Minnstf Boards have always interpreted these clauses in the bylaws to refer to extreme malfeasance or complete inability to do the job.
I don't see why any such interpretation is needed. VI(6) seems to me to be pretty clear on its face, and not in need of further interpretation: "The board of directors, with and only with a vote of at least two-thirds of the full board, may overrule any action of the executive committee or chairperson(s) or the convention committee, if in the view of the board such action was injurious or detrimental to the Society and its purposes, or clearly taken for reasons of personal disagreement or personal gain."
Surely there are actions that are injurious or detrimental to the Society (we don't even have to touch on personal disagreement or gain) that don't involve "extreme malfeasance or complete inability to do the job." Has it therefore been the policy of the Board to overlook such actions when they fell short of "extreme malfeasance or complete inability to do the job"?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 12:44 pm (UTC)I don't see why any such interpretation is needed. VI(6) seems to me to be pretty clear on its face, and not in need of further interpretation:
"The board of directors, with and only with a vote of at least two-thirds of the full board, may overrule any action of the executive committee or chairperson(s) or the convention committee, if in the view of the board such action was injurious or detrimental to the Society and its purposes, or clearly taken for reasons of personal disagreement or personal gain."
Surely there are actions that are injurious or detrimental to the Society (we don't even have to touch on personal disagreement or gain) that don't involve "extreme malfeasance or complete inability to do the job." Has it therefore been the policy of the Board to overlook such actions when they fell short of "extreme malfeasance or complete inability to do the job"?