03-16- 2002 Michel Sandbeck ltr to commission re Removal of Commission Member

Home Browse Search

judges to determine what is meant. Regardless of whether or not members’ specific duties are written in the statute or by-laws in the future, we have to go with what was written in the statutes or by-laws on February 7, 2002 when the motion was made. Once again, although I respect Commissioner Le’s opinion, the state statute says “has failed to attend four consecutive meetings without being excused by the commission.” Regardless of whether or not we agree with what the statute says, it says, “failed to attend four consecutive meetings”. It also says, “without being excused by the commission”. Not “without being excused by the Chairman or other member”, it says, “the commission”, and our commission does not excuse 4 consecutive absences. Now if the commission chooses to grant the power to excuse individual absences to the Chairman, that’s fine, but we are not talking about individual absences. Once again, we have to go with the statutes and by-laws we had before us on February 7, 2002 when the motion was made. I think our by-laws are in complete compliance with state statute. State statute is being adhered to and our by-laws take it one further in that they more clearly define what is unexcused by the commission and that is, “Any member who has failed to attend four consecutive meetings, regular or special, will be deemed unexcused by the Commission.” The act of missing four consecutive meetings is unexcused, not excused, but unexcused. The way I read the by-laws, the commission could excuse every absence, but if a member misses four consecutive meetings, that act will be deemed unexcused regardless of whether or not the individual absences were excused. And we are perfectly able to make such a rule, the statute leaves the decision up to the commission as to whether or not we want to excuse that action, and our by-laws, adopted by majority vote on March 09, 2000 clearly states that we do not excuse this. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the motion: “Those members who have missed four consecutive meetings should have their names sent to the judge for removal as per our by-laws,” was made at the February 7, 2002 meeting. This motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10pm. There was no motion made to Reconsider during that meeting. According to my interpretation of Robert’s Rules, page 305, lines 26 – 30, “the motion to Reconsider is subject to time limits and can be made only on the same day the vote to be reconsidered was taken”, therefore any further discussion of the motion is irrelevant. So far, as I understand it, the motion was made, seconded, and unanimously approved. Therefore, I would like to respectfully request the Chair direct the secretary to submit the names of the members in violation to the district court. Thank you, Michele Sandback Commission member