Guest John O Posted July 31, 2013 at 05:24 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 at 05:24 PM Our committee has an Executive Committee consisting of 6 members: a Chairman, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Vice-chairs, a secretary and a treasurer. The VC1 resigned from the executive committee and the committee in general. The VC1 vacancy was announced at the next regular committee meeting and an election held the following meeting. The holder of the VC3 position ran for the vacant VC1 office and was elected. For the past 3 months the newly elected VC1 claims to retain the VC3 position; holding the two elected position simultaneously. Our By Laws establish the 6 elected (executive committee) positions which are filled at our organizational meeting or when a vacancy exists. For vacant offices "a successor shall be elected at the next meeting of the (general) Committee" and that "f a vancy occurs in any elective office other than the Chairman, ... the vacancy election shall be held a the meeting followin the next meetinf of the Committee. In no case may more than 45 days be permitted to pass before a vacany election is held." The By Laws are silent on the ability to hold two elected (executive) offices at the same time but state that "The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rule of Order, Newly Revised, shall govern the Committee in all cases to which they are applicale and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Committee may adopt." What to do?Thanks,John O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 31, 2013 at 05:37 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 at 05:37 PM Our committee has an Executive Committee consisting of 6 members: a Chairman, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Vice-chairs, a secretary and a treasurer. The VC1 resigned from the executive committee and the committee in general. The VC1 vacancy was announced at the next regular committee meeting and an election held the following meeting. The holder of the VC3 position ran for the vacant VC1 office and was elected. For the past 3 months the newly elected VC1 claims to retain the VC3 position; holding the two elected position simultaneously. Our By Laws establish the 6 elected (executive committee) positions which are filled at our organizational meeting or when a vacancy exists. For vacant offices "a successor shall be elected at the next meeting of the (general) Committee" and that "f a vancy occurs in any elective office other than the Chairman, ... the vacancy election shall be held a the meeting followin the next meetinf of the Committee. In no case may more than 45 days be permitted to pass before a vacany election is held." The By Laws are silent on the ability to hold two elected (executive) offices at the same time but state that "The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rule of Order, Newly Revised, shall govern the Committee in all cases to which they are applicale and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Committee may adopt." What to do? No rule in RONR prevents a member from holding two offices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted July 31, 2013 at 05:39 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 at 05:39 PM If your bylaws (apparently) don't prohibit someone from holding two offices at a time then RONR isn't going to either. Why wasn't this concern raised at the time that the VC3 ran for and was elected VC1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 31, 2013 at 05:51 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 at 05:51 PM Why wasn't this concern raised at the time that the VC3 ran for and was elected VC1? I doubt anyone suspected that he intended to hold both positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted July 31, 2013 at 07:37 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 at 07:37 PM For the past 3 months the newly elected VC1 claims to retain the VC3 position; holding the two elected position simultaneously. You might suggest to this person that, for the good of the organization, and to ensure that the executive committee is operating at full strength, he resign from one of the offices. You might suggest that, if he doesn't, the voters might not take kindly to this at the next election. You might also remind him that, no matter how many offices he holds, he has only one vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John O Posted July 31, 2013 at 07:49 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 at 07:49 PM Thanks to Josh, Chris and Edgar for their thoughts. Josh is correct, no one thought this person would plan on holding both positions. Members have noted but not raised the issue, most do not want to cause conflict within the Committee. The political reality is that this appears be a tactic to hold the seat until the Chair finds someone he wants in the position rather than allow a nomination from the floor. Thanks again to all.John O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g40 Posted July 31, 2013 at 09:40 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 at 09:40 PM Having one person hold more than one "Vice-Chair" positions seems to defeat a major reason for having multiple Vice-Chairs -- that is, to act as Chair in the absence of the Chair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted July 31, 2013 at 09:52 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 at 09:52 PM Having one person hold more than one "Vice-Chair" positions seems to defeat a major reason for having multiple Vice-Chairs -- that is, to act as Chair in the absence of the Chair. I think that, when organizations have multiple vice-chairs, it's often more than just a pecking order; they each tend to have specific responsibilities. Which can raise havoc when they all move up a rung. When, for example, the 3rd Vice-chair in charge of sobriety becomes the 2nd Vice-chair in charge of beverages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g40 Posted July 31, 2013 at 11:39 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 at 11:39 PM I think that, when organizations have multiple vice-chairs, it's often more than just a pecking order; they each tend to have specific responsibilities. Which can raise havoc when they all move up a rung. When, for example, the 3rd Vice-chair in charge of sobriety becomes the 2nd Vice-chair in charge of beverages. I agree. Beware of "Unintended Consequences" of your bylaws and RONR. Great example! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.