“At 2pm today, 6 directors of Eagle Forum met in an improper, unprecedented telephone meeting. I objected to the meeting and at 2:11pm, I was muted from the call. The meeting was invalid under the Bylaws but...”
I really hate getting one side of the story, especially something as obviously emotional as this. Based on the article along with its link to another about ousting a board member, this story has more holes than swiss cheese.
1) If the “rogue” members were legitimately ousted based on the corporate by laws, they would not be able to hold a meeting in the name of that organization. If they decided to meet personally, that’s their business, though I know this is not really a free country anymore. Sounds to me like they were not actually kicked off any board. Either way, this would not be an “illegal” meeting.
2) If not a valid corporate meeting, what was Phyllis doing on the call? She was not “blocked” as first indicated, but put on mute at one point, so a) she knew the time and dial-in b) was a participant. Maybe they muted her because she got hysterical, or wouldn’t let others speak. Phones for conference calls are half-duplex when using speaker phones, meaning when one is speaking, no one else can be heard on the line. Maybe she exceeded her time. Who knows, without the other half of the story here.
3) By definition, if the organization has accounts, board members have authority to access them, based on by laws. So any political moves to get on the board obviously mean they are attempting to “take over”. Framing these politics so hysterically reduces the credibility of the complainer on my mind.
No they don't. There is a treasurer who controls the accounts and makes disbursements only in accordance with resolutions of the board of directors.