For example, there are a couple of important passages in the By-Laws pertinent to the president’s authority prior to Article VII, Sec. 8, which was quoted by Byron Efird in his post dated 7-23-11 in "Your Thoughts Matter!".
(1) Article II, Sec. 6, Parliamentary Rules. Robert's Rules of Parliamentary Procedure shall govern and control all matters not specifically covered by these By-Laws.
(2) Article VI, Powers and Duties of the Board of Directors, Sec. 1 (g), employ a manager, an independent contractor or such other employees as they deem necessary, and to prescribe their duties;
Now a specific quote from Robert's Rules: "Whatever the structure of the organization, the president has authority to do only the things that are assigned to that office by the bylaws. Often, those elected to the office of president misunderstand their role in the organization and believe that the members have given them free reign to run the organization any way they please, thus setting up a dictatorship."
Finally, if the Board is responsible for hiring and prescribing the duties of the GM, it seems only logical that they [The Board of Directors] would also determine whether those duties have been performed properly and, if not, the appropriate action; such as reprimand and/or termination. As a Board member, I feel that I should, at the very least, be informed as to the allegations that were brought against our GM. This was not done. Also, in my opinion, the accused should have a hearing to present his side of the story. I would like to hear from the DPOA members, how they feel about it.
Charles Wood
WoodCharles@hughes.net
262-9266
Charles Wood
WoodCharles@hughes.net
262-9266
