05-01-2015, 05:04 AM
Mermaid, you quoted this By-law "HPPOA Bylaws Article VIII-Board of Directors, Sec 7 Removal: "Any officer, director, or agent elected or appointed may be removed by the persons authorized to elect or appoint the officer, director, or agent with or without cause." and then you added this parentheses "(By majority vote of the board)".
Section 7 doesn't include how the vote is to be taken unfortunately, however, "Section 6. Vacancy" does. It states that when a vacancy occurs on the BOD that, "They shall be filled by vote of the majority of the remaining directors". This rule should also apply to Sec. 7. Because, if it isn't and hasn't been done that way in the past it will invite chaos and create the very situation we are in now because of that tactic BJ used against the VP at the last Exc. meeting. That tactic was nothing more than an assassination or coup against the VP. I'm not defending the VP only arguing against an unethical, calculated coup against another Director. If BJ and others wanted the VP out as an officer the right and fair way would have been to do exactly as Sec, 6 says..." by vote of the majority of the remaining directors" not when 4 directors are missing and creates an opportunity.
One other comment, if Sec. 7 meant what you and others might think it does then why couldn't clever directors use that tactic to actually remove an appointed director from the BOD? After all, that is what Sec. 7 would imply.
So, isn't it not only fair but logical that the wording from Sec. 6 be used in Sec. 7 situations? If I were the deposed VP I'd use that argument and stay put as VP. After all what could it hurt? We've had nothing but pandemonium any way since this BOD took over.
Section 7 doesn't include how the vote is to be taken unfortunately, however, "Section 6. Vacancy" does. It states that when a vacancy occurs on the BOD that, "They shall be filled by vote of the majority of the remaining directors". This rule should also apply to Sec. 7. Because, if it isn't and hasn't been done that way in the past it will invite chaos and create the very situation we are in now because of that tactic BJ used against the VP at the last Exc. meeting. That tactic was nothing more than an assassination or coup against the VP. I'm not defending the VP only arguing against an unethical, calculated coup against another Director. If BJ and others wanted the VP out as an officer the right and fair way would have been to do exactly as Sec, 6 says..." by vote of the majority of the remaining directors" not when 4 directors are missing and creates an opportunity.
One other comment, if Sec. 7 meant what you and others might think it does then why couldn't clever directors use that tactic to actually remove an appointed director from the BOD? After all, that is what Sec. 7 would imply.
So, isn't it not only fair but logical that the wording from Sec. 6 be used in Sec. 7 situations? If I were the deposed VP I'd use that argument and stay put as VP. After all what could it hurt? We've had nothing but pandemonium any way since this BOD took over.