If wlovelace's removal from her position (without any due process) was made public, ie to the parent body etc. that alone may be grounds for a suit if she chose to pursue such.

Ref my above quote "There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action. (Goethe)" the intended context was this (lest it be misinterpreted)....

No one should think that their actions can have no repercussions, just becuase THEY think their actions are fine and honorable and THEY think they did the right thing.

There is always another view that needs to be considered (even if we steer away from teh whole legal angles), and some may disagree with your actions. Especially when the actions are taken by those in public as opposed to private, sector, and I put public school administtrators and PTO leaders, into the domain of the public eye.

ie their actions as hired in and elected persons, respectively, will be viewed and judged by many in the court of public opinion, and the opinions of those people, can lead to consequeces (again, not talking leagal stuff at all).

If you ignore the big picture and short cut protocols 'just becuase' it seemed right for that particualr circumstance, dont be surprised if there is fallout afterwards when others learn of it and they dont agree with your actions or avenues taken to acheive your end.

That was my point, none other.

Physics 101, for every action, there is a reaction, if i remmber correctly.

And dont forget the intangible costs associated, IF a lawsuit were filed, regardless of outcome, ie the reputation of the school and the publicity of the actions of the few, and how its veiwed by the community, hard to put a defined $$$ amount on it, but can include lost support both moral and monetary, to the school.

Depends all on the details and the facts of course, and this is all hypothetical discourse anyway as the BBs are not fact finding missions but serve other purposes that are equally worthy and relevant.

There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action. (Goethe)

This covers Califronia

Many nonprofit organizations don't realize that the governance of the organization and the conduct of its directors and officers can significantly effect the corporate shield / personal liability protection that everyone seems to take for granted. Yes, if your nonprofit is incorporated in California, the volunteer directors and officers have some statutory protection from personal liability. But only if the corporation is operated correctly, follows corporate formalities, adopts appropriate procedures, and only if the directors and officers conduct themselves within the required standards of good faith and prudent decision-making. Otherwise, in the event of a lawsuit, a good plaintiff's attorney may be able to "pierce the corporate veil" - making the personal assets of the directors and officers vulnerable to a damage award. Think a day of "Board training" is too expensive, or a waste of time? Think again.

Even if you have a well-run nonprofit and generally prudent directors and officers, don't confuse the protection provided by the statute with the need for good insurance coverage. In fact, for California public benefit corporations (501c3 organizations), insurance - or a good faith attempt to get insurance - is required as part of the criteria to qualify for the personal liability protection offered by the statute. And, just because the statute may protect directors and officers from a finding of liability, it doesn't cover the attorneys' fees that will be incurred in fighting the lawsuit. But a good insurance policy just might . . . .

Yes but if OJ is a member of a voting body PTO, they cant just kick him out (because he was accused of murder and aquitted)... especially a PTO that doesnt charge dues (your not a private organization)
I discussed this with a few lawyer freinds, 'cuz I think this is just plain bad advice... they agree the way lovelaces' situation was handled is just begging for a lawsuit (I live in LA the HOME of the lawsuit)...
Tim I love your advice but the OJ quip has nothing to do with this scenario
1. Doesnt currently work 4 u and
2. isnt a voting memeber
3. your comparing 2 things that arent even close (comparing apples 2 oranges)

(Who you hire has nothing 2 remotely similar with getting booted out of a volunteer organization)

You all want bylaws and procedure but because someone acted detrimental to the PTO/PTA you say throw all procedure out and boot them... I find that absolutely ludicrous... I want 2 join y'alls PTA/PTO then act like an @#%$ and get booted (I need some extra cash)

As for due process your correct (for hiring there is none but for getting fired there is), any democratically run civic nonprofit, call it due process or whatever for the others I mentioned my point was fairness and equality are guaranteed- now the PTO is mandated by law perse to follow it but.. I think your just opening yourself to.. the WHAT comes around goes around...

The ultimate judges of that situation (in the court of public opinion of course), will be the parent body at that school, as to if diplomacy was adequate and correct. It is, after all, they whom the PTO and principal work with, it is they whose opinions matter most. Hopefully lovelace , alls well that ends well for you (and your kids) and that theres been no other fallout.