College Political Club Decision

[kkim]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

I'm the current presiding officer of a college club.

Our constitution states that the subordinate officer assists the superior officer with all tasks and assumes tasks that officer deems necessary.

Last semester, the presiding officer asked his subordinate (VP) officer if he'd pick up his luggage for him to carry out to his car following their training session. (It was a voluntarily-attended training.)

He didn't and was then considered insubordinate.

The offending officer subsequently seemed to retaliate by taking over control of our websites in such a way that ejected all other administrators from being able to access it any longer.


As a result, the primary officer called for our members to vote the officer out of his position, which was carried out successfully.

After the fact, since both officers were at the training site on their own accord and, the subordinate was expected to conduct any request at the whim of the superior officer, isn't that an unfair interpretive basis of officers' duties to be subject to invalidation?

(I may have the ability now to invalidate that result last semester to restore the name of the subordinate officer in the interest of justice. Did the initial interpretation of the basis of rule drive the subordinate to the later action? Is that just/should the decision be upheld?)

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

I'm the current presiding officer of a college club.

Our constitution states that the subordinate officer assists the superior officer with all tasks and assumes tasks that officer deems necessary.

Last semester, the presiding officer asked his subordinate (VP) officer if he'd pick up his luggage for him to carry out to his car following their training session. (It was a voluntarily-attended training.)

He didn't and was then considered insubordinate.

The offending officer subsequently seemed to retaliate by taking over control of our websites in such a way that ejected all other administrators from being able to access it any longer.


As a result, the primary officer called for our members to vote the officer out of his position, which was carried out successfully.

After the fact, since both officers were at the training site on their own accord and, the subordinate was expected to conduct any request at the whim of the superior officer, isn't that an unfair interpretive basis of officers' duties to be subject to invalidation?

(I may have the ability now to invalidate that result last semester to restore the name of the subordinate officer in the interest of justice. Did the initial interpretation of the basis of rule drive the subordinate to the later action? Is that just/should the decision be upheld?)

This seems like a good discussion for your college political club.

 

[CdwJava]

Sounds like you may also have to revert back to the by-laws to determine what the rules, policies and procedures actually are.

Since the Pres managed to get the VP booted, it seems he at least has the charisma to sway them even if he did not have any solid foundation within the by-laws or rules to take the action he did. All because what he did may seem petty and vindictive does not make it "wrong" so far as it pertains to the governing regulations of the club.

 

[LdiJ]

Sounds like you may also have to revert back to the by-laws to determine what the rules, policies and procedures actually are.

Since the Pres managed to get the VP booted, it seems he at least has the charisma to sway them even if he did not have any solid foundation within the by-laws or rules to take the action he did. All because what he did may seem petty and vindictive does not make it "wrong" so far as it pertains to the governing regulations of the club.

I agree with this. However, if the OP is in the position or will be in the position to undo the "booting" that might be perfectly valid as well. Certainly the Pres's actions were morally questionable.