Guest Justice Posted March 2, 2015 at 09:49 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 at 09:49 PM If the bylaws state that the officers "shall" fill a vacancy, is there a timeline in which they should do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted March 2, 2015 at 09:56 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 at 09:56 PM As soon as possible. In legalese, "shall" means "must". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 2, 2015 at 10:02 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 at 10:02 PM Is there any recourse that an assembly can take when the officers will not fill a vacancy. The bylaws clearly state that the officers shall fill the vacancy. Bylaws also state that the officers consist of certain positions, one of which is empty by resignation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted March 2, 2015 at 10:10 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 at 10:10 PM Is there any recourse that an assembly can take when the officers will not fill a vacancy. Well, you could get new officers who will do their job. See FAQ #20. But do your bylaws actually say, "the officers shall fill the vacancy"? Usually that authority would be given to a body such as a board (which may consist of the officers). In any event, if your bylaws give "the officers" the exclusive authority to fill the vacancy, then only "the officers" can do so. Otherwise, Official Interpretation 2006-13 might be instructive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert B Fish Posted March 2, 2015 at 10:17 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 at 10:17 PM A member could make a motion instruct the officers to get the job done by a certain time. Making the motion would generate the discussion about why they have not yet acted. -Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 2, 2015 at 10:17 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 at 10:17 PM Well, you could get new officers who will do their job. See FAQ #20. Well, yes, but that is a separate cross we must bear. Thank you! The authority is given to a Board that is made up of certain officers. I didn't have the info right in front of me, but this is very helpful. thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted March 2, 2015 at 11:49 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 at 11:49 PM I agree completely with the previous answers, but will point out that sometimes it is difficult to find someone suitable who is willing to serve and the organization (whether it be the executive board, board of directors or general assembly) decides to just leave the position vacant. It happens more often than you might realize in real life. You might also keep in mind that a provision in the bylaws empowering the board to fill vacancies is sometimes intended to mean, or interpreted to mean, that it is the board, rather than the general membership, that is empowered to fill vacancies and the members don't interpret it to mean "must fill, immediately, asap, without exception", but rather interpret it to mean just what I said above, namely, that the board (as opposed to any other body) is empowered to fill vacancies, but doesn't necessarily have to do it. I've known many organizations to intentionally leave a position vacant. Sometimes they just don't elect someone to fill a particular spot and sometimes they just don't fill a particular vacancy when it arises. That may or may not be appropriate, and may or may not be what is intended by those who drafted the bylaws, but that is the way it often works out in real life. Bu, if the membership wants he position filled and the board is refusing to fill it, the membership, depending on the bylaws, can either direct or request that the board fill the vacancy post haste. Or perhaps amend the bylaws to allow the membership to fill the vacancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.