2014 Resolutions – 1 of 5

Submitted by the NACCS Board


Membership Notification of Action to Remove Board Member for Non-compliance of Duties

Whereas, the NACCS Board must invoke the By-laws to remove an elected Board Member or to ask an elected Board Member to step down for non-compliance of duties, (Article 5, Section 2)

Whereas, the NACCS Board exercised such action in 2013 of an elected Board Member for Non-compliance of duties

Whereas, the NACCS Board relied upon the Bylaws which do not have a provision for next steps following the removal of a Board Member for Non-compliance of duties

Whereas, the NACCS Board did not announce such action following precedent set in October 2011 when the bylaws were used to ask a Board Member to step down due to non-compliance of duties

Whereas, the Board used commonly accepted professional standards to deliberate the personnel matters and decided to exercise confidentiality in regards to personnel matters

Whereas, during the 2014 annual meeting the NACCS Board met disapproval for not announcing the action

Therefore be it resolved, that in the event that the NACCS Board invokes the Bylaws (Article 5, Section 2) to remove a Board Member from the NACCS Board for non-compliance of duties in the future that a new section be added to the NACCS By-laws in the section: “Article 5: Officers, Terms of Office, and Duties” that will read as follows:

Article 5, Section 8: Membership Notification of Board Member Removal
In the event that the NACCS Board invokes Article 5, Section 2 of the NACCS By-laws regarding all nationally elected board members, the NACCS Board will immediately notify the membership of the action taken and cite the by-law section outlined above. The duties of the removed officer will be assigned to the remaining board members. The membership will receive notification through appropriate forms of communication used by NACCS.

10 Responses to “2014 Resolutions – 1 of 5”

  1. José Flores Says:

    Technically, this resolution is out of order because it circumvents the process by which NACCS members put forth resolutions. It is my understanding that the NACCS Board cannot submit resolutions particularly because the NB is responsible for counting votes.

    Please refer to Article 12 of the NACCS By-laws…”All resolutions submitted during the national business meeting must emerge from and be approved by the Foco or Caucuses.” and Article 13 “Amendments to the Bylaws shall be presented as resolutions as stipulated in Art. XII.”

  2. Carlos Guerrero Says:

    The By-laws provide the Board the ability to make policy or bylaws recommendations:

    Please see Article IX: Committees,

    Section 2: Policy Committee
    The Policy Committee is comprised of three members appointed by the National Board. The Immediate Past Chair acts as Chair of the Policy Committee. The Committee shall update the Association’s Bylaws as needed and required by resolutions passed by the body. The Policy Committee shall also be responsible for collecting resolutions passed at the annual conference. In addition, the Policy Committee will also provide the National Board with recommendations of new articles and/or sections that need to be addressed in the Association. If the National Board approves the recommendation(s), these shall be presented to the membership for a vote and ratification as stipulated in Art. XII. Other policy related actions may be assigned by the National Board.

  3. Manuel de Jesús Hernández-G. Says:

    The above comment and bylaw citation fails to establish that members of the National Board have the right to present resolutions. The four reference in the NACCS bylaws to resolution clearly state that all resolutions “need to emerge from and be approved by the Focos and Caucuses” (Appendix VII). Additionally, Article IV states that National Board members “must be active within a Foco or Caucus,” which guides the Board members to his/her Foco or Caucus in order to present a resolution to be approved before being submitted to the NACCS Business Meeting.

    For the five points in the NACCS bylaws regarding resolutions, please see below:

    FOUR POINTS ON NACCS BYLAWS:
    NOT ONE STATES THAT MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL BOARD CAN SUBMIT A RESOLUTION;
    ALL RESOLUTIONS MUST COME FROM THE FOCOS OR CAUCUSES

    Point 1:
    ARTICLE IV: NATIONAL BOARD
    The composition of the National Board shall be the Chair, Chair-elect, Secretary, Treasurer, Immediate Past Chair, three At-large Representatives, and the Executive Director. The Board is charged with the responsibility for the governance of the Association.
    All National Board members must maintain their good standing within the Association during their term of office, must be active within a Foco or Caucus, must be knowledgeable of the Association and its bylaws, and must promote the general welfare of the Association. The National Board shall oversee and implement all of the Associations policies and procedures. It may establish committees as needed to implement recommendations and resolutions from the membership.
    .
    Point 2:
    ARTICLE XII: RESOLUTIONS
    All resolutions submitted during the national business meeting must emerge from and be approved by the Foco or Caucuses. Resolutions from the floor will not be entertained.
    Foco Representatives and Caucus Chairs are responsible for collecting typed resolutions from the authors. They are responsible for submitting their approved resolutions to the NACCS Secretary at least twenty-four hours before the business meeting begins.
    The National Board will meet prior to the business meeting in which resolutions will be presented to the body, to review each resolution for appropriate guideline procedure.
    Votes on resolutions that do not have bylaw implications require only a majority vote.

    Point 3:
    ARTICLE XIII: AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAWS
    Amendments to the Bylaws shall be presented as resolutions as stipulated in Art. XII. The resolution must meet approval by a two-thirds vote of the voting membership. Approval of amendments may also be conducted by mail to the membership if the National Board deems it necessary.

    Point 4:
    APPENDIX VII: Resolutions Guidelines
    The guidelines for submitting resolutions follow:
    All resolutions must be submitted for consideration during the general business meeting and need to emerge from and be approved by the Focos or Caucuses. The Foco and Caucus meetings are scheduled before the national business meeting and will be the main avenue for processing Foco and Caucus resolutions. Resolutions from the floor during the business meeting will not be entertained.

  4. Julia Curry Says:

    Manuel de Jesus- If your intention is to discredit the current NACCS Board, please be transparent and say so. The fact is, as you very well know–given that you were a former chair of NACCS under the previous format of the leadership when the Chair was appointed by the CC and not elected by the membership- that much of the function of NACCS was problematic and internal.
    Let’s begin with the fact that the bylaws were not updated regularly, it took the leadership of Louis Mendoza (Chair 1999) and Kathy Blackmer (Chair 1998) to work with a small group which included Guadalupe San Miguel (Chair 2003) and Cynthia Orozco to bring the bylaws up to date in 1999.
    You might recall that your CC and many before them often operated under the suspension of bylaws because they had not been updated.
    Many of the changes that led to the current leadership procedures were correctives to the many problematic practices of previous times. I do not believe that people were malicious, but simply overlooked the need and importance of following the bylaws in our organization.
    One of the most important changes in NACCS was its structure to elect the board as a means of giving the membership the right to choose its leadership. This practice was introduced by the CC in 2001 under the leadership of Yolanda Chavez-Layva (Chair).
    Finally in 2005 when Reynaldo Macias was the elected Chair we moved to the current structure. But to do this, he relied on the practice of NACCS which was that the Board or the former CC could indeed submit resolutions for change in NACCS similar to the Focos or Caucuses. The introduction at the Business meeting(s) is the opportunity for the membership to respond.
    BTW, you probably don’t know this but during Louis Mendoza’s term there was a challenge to the Lesbian Caucus on their right to submit resolutions because caucuses were not listed as able to submit resolutions given that they existed under the auspices of Focos.
    The Lesbian Caucus would never have been formed had Devon Pena (Chair 1989-90) not asked for the Chicana Caucus to host the resolution to form this very important caucus of NACCS in 1990.
    I can mention many other problems with the past, but I want to address the issue you raise of the leadership and their membership in their regional Focos. I have been a long-standing member of many Focos (SCAL, Tejas, Rocky Mountain, and since 1990 Northern California). I can say the same is true for members of our current board. Why challenge their integrity and commitment? It is disingenuous of you to ask the Board not to have the right to lead. I also ask you Manuel de Jesus to give them their due respect, do not propose that they are without integrity or act in good faith. NACCS exists because people do the work in good faith.

  5. Cordelia C. Candelaria Says:

    CORRECTION BELOW>> sorry, colegas, i left out “RELIED” in my quote from Julia below, so i’ve corrected it. c/
    I agree that Article IX does not specifically address the fact that the ByLaws call for resolutions to be submitted at the the Annual Business Meeting, as Julia Curry acknowledges. She confirms that after 2005, as Chair “Reynaldo Macias…relied on the practice of NACCS which was that the Board or the former CC could indeed submit resolutions for change in NACCS similar to the Focos or Caucuses. The introduction at the Business meeting(s) is the opportunity for the membership to respond.”
    As Julia & cohorts know, that practice was followed in San Antonio conference when i drafted a resolution against sexual harassment on the Board’s behalf which we properly submitted to the membership at the Business Meeting. Thus, i agree w/both our Foco Rep. Jose Flores that the Board’s post-2014conference ‘resolution’ is invalid b/c it circumvents the procedure that Julia herself acknowledges.
    !Vote NO, NACCSistas, on Resolution ONE—it was submitted last & is not in compliance w/ByLaws or NACCS practice. Vote YES on Resolutions 3 and 4 which address notification, accountability, and integrity issues.
    ccc

  6. Manuel de Jesús Hernández-G. . Says:

    Firstly, I wish to re-quote part of Carlos from quote of “Section 2: Policy Committee”: “The Committee shall update the Association’s Bylaws [my emphasis] as needed and required by resolutions passed by the body. The Policy Committee shall also be responsible for collecting resolutions passed at the annual conference. In addition, the Policy Committee will also provide the National Board with recommendations of new articles and/or sections that need to be addressed in the Association.” Next, I re-quote three phrases from Article IV: National Board: “All National Board members … must be active within a Foco or Caucus, must be knowledgeable of the Association and its bylaws, and must promote the general welfare of the Association” Thirdly, I call Julia and other readers’ attention to the four points I made by directly quoting the NACCS bylaws. Thus, direct statement in the NACCS bylaws recognize literary the Focos and the Caucuses as the democratic source of the resolutions, and there is no direct statement in which the National Board members are given the right to write and present a resolution, and particularly no a post-2014 conference one. Moreover, by claiming the presence of inaccuracies in them, the Board’s uncompliant resolution poisons the well for two resolutions from the Rocky Mountain Foco and the Colorado Foco as well as one from the René Nuñez PAC. For all the above reasons and the need practice democracy in NACCS, I recommend a NO vote for Resolution 1. It presents a danger in furthering hegemonic rule on the part of National Board, which even has a voting member who was not democratically elected.
    In other matters, colega Julia, let me point out the erroneous description that I wish “to discredit the current NACCS Board.” I am very well aware that there has been a turnover due to recent elections. From the private consultation with Dr. Devon Peña prior to the 2014 national conference to my actions during the conference itself, including talking to the designated Chair, the Immediate Past Chair, and new elected Board members, I did always suggest democratic actions on the part of the Board members to resolve the issues before them in a friendly and humane way. My overall concern and interest in supporting the three resolutions—and not the uncompliant one by the Board—stems from the need to combat a top down organizational structure established to “clean house,” marginalize the Focos and Causes, set up predetermined elections, and deemphasize publishing refereed scholarship. It was a restructuring whose primary author abandoned—I am sad in needing to point it out–by not remaining directly involved in NACCS from then until recently. There is much committee work to be done on the current NACCS structure and the accompanying bylaws. A first step is to have an open and transparent vote on the resolutions.

  7. Julia Curry Says:

    The 2012-2013 admit that they should have notified the membership. This resolution addresses procedure in the event such action must be taken again in the future.

    Vote yes–it is a sound practice. There ought to be guidance to future board members and also to the membership in terms of communication of actions taken by the board.

  8. Manuel de Jesús Hernández-G. . Says:

    Dear reader: I wish to remind you that my colega Julia Curry’s comment above represents a conflict of interest on two levels: 1) she is an un-elected Board member and 2) she gets paid about $ 10,000.00 per year as paid staff.

  9. Ed Munoz Says:

    As a newly elected member of the board I understand why the difficult decision of asking Dr. Candelaria to step down was made…She was not fulfilling her duties, which then places undue burden on the rest of the board and paid staff. The membership should have been notified right away, but for very sound reasons they decided against it…All of this has been spelled out in a number of responses, emails, minutes, etc., that I choose not to reintroduce…
    I fully support this resolution because it provides board members a specific process for informing the membership of similar actions in the future, if they so happen…Thanks to the board and paid staff for their leadership and professionalism on this matter!

  10. Manuel de Jesús Hernández-G. Says:

    Saludos, Ed.

    It is great to read you again.

    Congratulations once again for sharing that you are a privileged Board member who has not clashed with a manipulative staff. In contrast, Cordelia Candelaria was programmed to be excluded and ridiculed at the 2013 San Antonio NACCS Business Meeting for asking for an official report on the organization’s financial status.

    If you vote NO vote on Resolution 1 and YES vote on Resolutions 3, 4, and 5, you can protect all elected Board members when he or she exercises their right to free speech.

    I am surprised that you, as a published scholar in the Board, express little empathy for Cordelia who is a founder of the field of Chicana and Chicano Studies and has mentored hundreds of students and scores of junior faculty. She is also a NACCS Scholar.

    I hope you are able to solidly stand and defend your professional ethics amidst the current challenges we are facing to maintain NACCS democracy and membership welfare. They also involve reaffirming the principle of a collective editorship that gives credit to all editors who directly help produce a refereed volume of NACCS proceedings. Such democratic NACCS tradition and practice counters the practice of exclusion, something which is ocurring to NACCS Scholar Cordelia Candelaria.