who is immediate past president?

[Guest robert]

Past president who has completed full 3 year term  1 year back or present president who has just resigned mid term after 1 year.

[Guest Dreschler]

This is really a matter of bylaw interpretation that you society through its assembly will have to decide. Once decided, clarify the bypass or eliminate the awkward position of past president!

[Guest Dreschler]

This is really a matter of bylaw interpretation that you society through its assembly will have to decide. Once decided, clarify the bypass or eliminate the awkward position of past president!

Bypass -> bylawa

[Guest schaberg]

schaberg: 

 

A president on his resignation being accepted , becomes past president , irrespective of duration of his term as president. Now , whoever is just preseding past president will be logically be treated  as immediate past president. There is no ambiguity in this matter. But,  if your  society bye laws provide any different interpretation you may follow them..

[Guest Edgar]

 . . . whoever is just preseding past president will be logically be treated  as immediate past president.

 

Or not.

[Josh Martin]

Past president who has completed full 3 year term  1 year back or present president who has just resigned mid term after 1 year.

 

If your bylaws call for an "Immediate Past President," then the simple definitions of the words would suggest that the person who just resigned is the Immediate Past President. This is, however, ultimately a question of bylaws interpretation. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

 

In the long run, I advise amending the bylaws to get rid of this position altogether.

[J. J.]

If your bylaws call for an "Immediate Past President," then the simple definitions of the words would suggest that the person who just resigned is the Immediate Past President. This is, however, ultimately a question of bylaws interpretation. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

 

I would say that, if the bylaws are otherwise silent, there is no ambiguity to the terms, the IPP is the person that immediately held the office of president prior to the incumbent holding that office. 

 

On your second point, your advice is quite sound. 

[Dan Honemann]

I would say that, if the bylaws are otherwise silent, there is no ambiguity to the terms, the IPP is the person that immediately held the office of president prior to the incumbent holding that office. 

 

On your second point, your advice is quite sound. 

 

No ambiguity? Are you saying that there is no question whatsoever but that the office of immediate past president automatically ceases when the next election intervenes, as is suggested by Demeter (on page 258 of the old edition I have)?

[Steven Britton]

No ambiguity? Are you saying that there is no question whatsoever but that the office of immediate past president automatically ceases when the next election intervenes, as is suggested by Demeter (on page 258 of the old edition I have)?

 

Once upon a time, while mentioning this citation, Mr. Martin warned me concerning the Wrath of Dan......

[J. J.]

No ambiguity? Are you saying that there is no question whatsoever but that the office of immediate past president automatically ceases when the next election intervenes, as is suggested by Demeter (on page 258 of the old edition I have)?

 

 

Well, I am suggesting that, based on the definition of the words in the English language.    I would not say the "office" and my Demeter says "officer status."

 

I am saying that, between November 22, 1963, and January 20, 1969, there was no one in the position of immediate past President of the United States. Eisenhower's tenure as immediate past President of the United States lasted from January 20, 1961, to November 22, 1963.

[Dan Honemann]

Well, I am suggesting that, based on the definition of the words in the English language.    I would not say the "office" and my Demeter says "officer status."

 

I am saying that, between November 22, 1963, and January 20, 1969, there was no one in the position of immediate past President of the United States. Eisenhower's tenure as immediate past President of the United States lasted from January 20, 1961, to November 22, 1963.

 

And all that I'm suggesting is that there are, indeed, reasonable differences of opinion, which means that guest Dreschler and Josh were right to say that it is a question of bylaws interpretation. 

[jstackpo]

And the best opinion (mine, of course) is to get rid of the position...

 

In my personal view, setting up an "official" Immediate Past President (IPP) position is not a particularly good idea.  The most telling argument is the real possibility of a close and bitter race for the presidency, with the current president running (for a second term) against an "outsider".  And the outsider - the "reform candidate", perhaps - wins but is still stuck with the thorn of the IPP on the Board in a position to snipe at the new president.  And perhaps attempt to undermine the new president's plans.

If the erstwhile president is a "good guy" the new president can (usually, depending on the bylaws) appoint him to a preexisting committee - or even have him chair one, which might put him on the Board - as the new president sees fit.  That way the IPP's experience and value can be put to good use, when needed, without the danger of setting up an adversarial situation which would require a bylaw amendment to get out of.

Here's some more reasons

1) The President resigns and wants nothing to do with the organization.
 
2) The President simply doesn't run for election again because he's had enough, and never shows up at a board meeting.
 
3) The President is booted out of office for being incompetent, or for something more nefarious.
 
4) The President dies.
 
5) The President resigns and moves (wants to help but isn't around).

6) Even worse is the bylaw assignment of the IPP to chair a committee - such as nominating.  Then he dies/quits/leaves town, &c.  You are then stuck with an unfillable (by definition) vacancy.

 

Note that except for item 4, the IPP may well be part of the quorum requirement for meetings, even though he never shows up.

[J. J.]

And all that I'm suggesting is that there are, indeed, reasonable differences of opinion, which means that guest Dreschler and Josh were right to say that it is a question of bylaws interpretation. 

 

 

I'm not certain how there could be, absent some type of qualification in the bylaws.  The definition in Demeter seems to match the dictionary definition. 

 

That said, what else they bylaws say about the position could very easily change that definition.  The position might be for the IPP might state "the immediate past president who has not been removed from office."  It might state the immediate past president that remains a member in good standing.  Likewise, a parliamentary authority could change that definition.

 

I'm in agreement that the IPP position is not a good idea.

[Dan Honemann]

As has frequently been noted here in this forum, RONR has nothing at all to say about what is or is not meant by "immediate past president", and I can assure you that I do not find what is said about it in my copy of Demeter the least bit persuasive.

 

If the bylaws of any organization create on office for the "immediate past president" (no matter how much we frown upon it), those bylaws will need to be interpreted in order to know exactly what factual circumstances must exist, and must continue to exist, in order to identify the person holding that office.

[J. J.]

I am referring specifically to the term "immediate past president."  I do not see any more ambiguity in the term "immediate past president" than for that term  "in October," as each phrase is used in American English.

 

Obviously, the bylaws may definition of either term, and either may be modified or changed completely (as a bylaw might change the definition of the term "majority vote," to the horror of us all).  That modification will not change the definition in American English of either of those terms.  The terms "immediate past president" or "in October" are not ambigious in themselves.

[Dan Honemann]

J.J., I fully understand that you find no ambiguity in the term "immediate past president" when that term is used in bylaws, with nothing more at all, to identify the person who shall hold an office. There is no need to keep saying so. We simply disagree.