But they were not, as the article said. And, it is clear that they didn't. No notice meetings not presided over by the President are virtually nowhere legal meetings. There is a uniform nonprofit corporations act adopted by virtually all the states and the district of columbia in some form or other which covers most of these things.
It’s a one-sided article. I’ll reserve judgement until I hear the other side.
The mob is throwing stones without evidence once again.
If the board members are acting according to their bylaws it’s not a “coup”.
But they were not, as the article said
As you note, the article said; however, the article did not show.
Was it a non-notice meeting? What constitutes notice under the actual bylaws, and what sort of notice was actually given? What constitutes quorum? Who was presiding?
If we had more facts, we might be able to draw conclusions one way or another, though given that Schafly was present and participating for the first 11 minutes, one might end up concluding that this is something of a mess. Facts would be useful things.
Andy ...
We meet again, and again you are spouting nonsense that you know nothing about.
If a Board has a quorum, then they can meet whether the President is there or not. It is the role of the Board to hire and FIRE the executives of the organization, and if the board determines that the status of the executive is on the table, they are fully in their rights to exclude them so they can discuss the situation. To say that no notice meetings are virtually never legal is a complete fallacy. Boards do have regularly scheduled meetings, but every Board has the right to an emergency session. Meeting to discuss removing the President would constitute an emergency session.
BTTT