Effective Date for Term of Office

[Guest Guest - Georgia Nonprofit]

A bylaws amendment to change the term of office from 1 year to 2 years was passed by the membership, prior to the expiration of the current term of office. At this same meeting, new officers were elected with the intent to serve 2 years, pending approval from the state Executive Committee. Per the provisions of our association, a bylaws amendment becomes effective upon approval by the Executive Committee. Approval from the state Executive Committee was received prior to the end of the current term, making the bylaws amendment in effect for the next term of office, which would be for those officers elected to the next term of office. The state Executive Committee has elected a new Executive Committee and appointed a new bylaws committee chair, who is now rescinding the decision of the previous state bylaws chair. I believe there is a claim of ambiguous interpretation of this amendment, since there is confusion as to whether the officers were elected to a one year term, as the approval of the amendment was received after the elections, even though the officers did not take office until the new term ended. Where can I find information on this issue?

[Guest Guest - Georgia Nonprofit]

*even though the officers did not take office until the current term ended. 

[Gary Novosielski]

1 hour ago, Guest Guest - Georgia Nonprofit said:

A bylaws amendment to change the term of office from 1 year to 2 years was passed by the membership, prior to the expiration of the current term of office. At this same meeting, new officers were elected with the intent to serve 2 years, pending approval from the state Executive Committee. Per the provisions of our association, a bylaws amendment becomes effective upon approval by the Executive Committee. Approval from the state Executive Committee was received prior to the end of the current term, making the bylaws amendment in effect for the next term of office, which would be for those officers elected to the next term of office. The state Executive Committee has elected a new Executive Committee and appointed a new bylaws committee chair, who is now rescinding the decision of the previous state bylaws chair. I believe there is a claim of ambiguous interpretation of this amendment, since there is confusion as to whether the officers were elected to a one year term, as the approval of the amendment was received after the elections, even though the officers did not take office until the [current] term ended. Where can I find information on this issue?

Normally, per RONR, a bylaws committee chairman would have no power to issue or to rescind any bylaws provision, nor to interpret what any given provision means.  These powers are reserved to the assembly that can amend the bylaws.

If you have rules to the contrary, those rules will need to be interpreted by your society, since they would supersede the rules in RONR.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

1 hour ago, Guest Guest - Georgia Nonprofit said:

Where can I find information on this issue?

It would be found in your rules. Ultimately it is up to your organization to interpret those rules.

[Richard Brown]

Guest guest, are you telling us that the state bylaws committee chair, all by himself, has rescinded a decision of the executive committee?  You did say the executive committee is required to approve bylaws amendments and that the committee approved the change at issue, didn't you?  Or was it just the prior bylaws committee chair who did it all by himself?  We really need more information as to who and which body did what and exactly what your governing documents require in the way of approval of bylaws amendments.

I agree that this is likely a matter bylaws interpretation and that your answer may be in your own rules, but with more precise information we might be able to help you.

 

[Guest Guest - Georgia Nonprofit]

The issue for us is that there is no clarity on the interpretation provided. According to RONR, when changing the terms of service, is it at the next term of service, or at the election of new officers? The state bylaws committee chair and the Executive Committee are interpreting the change of service to be for the next election, and not for the next term of service after the approval was granted.

[Bruce Lages]

19 minutes ago, Guest Guest - Georgia Nonprofit said:

 According to RONR, when changing the terms of service, is it at the next term of service, or at the election of new officers?

According to RONR, it's neither. The newly adopted term of service would take effect as soon as it is adopted. If you want the change to take place at some other time, you need to either write that provision into the bylaw amendment, or adopt a proviso at the same time as the amendment, stipulating that the amendment will not take effect until whatever time or condition you chose.

[Guest Guest - Georgia Nonprofit]

25 minutes ago, Guest Guest - Georgia Nonprofit said:

The issue for us is that there is no clarity on the interpretation provided. According to RONR, when changing the terms of service, is it at the next term of service, or at the election of new officers? The NEWLY APPOINTED state bylaws committee chair and the NEWLY ELECTED Executive Committee are interpreting the change of service to be for the next election, and not for the next term of service after the approval was granted.

The previous bylaws chair provided direction in this bylaw amendment process. It was understood that the membership could vote on the amendment to change the terms of service, and after that, at the same meeting, we could vote on new officers. As long as the approval of the amendment was made prior to the end of the current term of service, the change would take effect for the next term of service, which would mean that the officers elected to the next term of service would do so according to the amended bylaws of 2 years. However, last week, we received an interpretation delivered by the newly appointed state bylaws committee chair and the newly elected Executive Committee, informing us that any officer elected prior to the approval of the amendment in the change in term of service, was elected to serve according to the bylaws at the time of the election. The next election of officers would be when the change in the term of service would be effective, not the next term of service after approval has been granted.

[Gary Novosielski]

As Mr. Lages has pointed out, the rules in RONR say that by-laws amendments take effect as soon as they are adopted, and elections take effect as soon as the results are announced.

Your organization has apparently adopted special rules that supersede these.  So any citations from RONR that we might supply would not be applicable to your situation.  I tend to agree with the earlier interpretation, but I'm not a member.  If you don't agree that the rules are being properly followed, raise a Point of Order (§23) at the next meeting to get a ruling from the chair.  Be prepared to Appeal (§24) the decision if it is unfavorable and the reasoning behind it is unconvincing.

[Guest Guest - Georgia Nonprofit]

There is a provision in our bylaws that state: "The amendment(s) shall become effective upon receipt of approval from the state board." Here is how this event took place:

April membership meeting, quorum present, membership voted to amend the term of service from 1 year to 2 years for elected officers; at same meeting, new officers elected to begin their term of office June 1, as the current term of office ends May 31; amendment sent to state and approval received on May 19.

Does the newly elected officers serve a 1 year term or 2 year term? And what qualifies the response?

[Richard Brown]

Guest Guest, I agree with all of the posts above and in particular with Mr. Novosielski's statement that he personally agrees with the first interpretation you were given.  Ultimately this seems to be a matter of interpreting your own bylaws and our opinions don't count in that regard.  We haven't seen your bylaws provisions regarding bylaws amendments. However, the provisions on pages 597-598 of the 11th edition of  RONR might provide some key guidance.  Since I don't know if you have a copy of RONR,  I am quoting the pertinent text from those two pages.  Pay particular attention to the second paragraph which I have bolded:

"Time at Which a Bylaw Amendment Takes Effect:

An amendment to the bylaws goes into effect immediately upon its adoption unless the motion to adopt specifies another time for its becoming effective, or the assembly has set such a time by a previously adopted motion. While the amendment is pending, a motion can be made to amend the enacting words of the motion to amend by adding a clause such as this: ". . . with the proviso that [or, ". . . provided, however, that"] this amendment shall not go into effect until after the close of this annual meeting." Or, while the amendment is pending, an incidental motion can be adopted that, in the event of the amendment's adoption, it shall not take effect until a specified time. Either method requires only a majority vote. It is a mistake to encumber the bylaws themselves with provisions which have effect for only a limited time. If the mechanics of transition to operation under a revised set of bylaws will be complicated in ways for which the act of adoption must provide temporarily, such provisions can be numbered and attached to the revision draft on a separate sheet headed "Provisos Relating to Transition." The motion to adopt the revision can then be made in this form: "I move the adoption of the revised bylaws with the provisos attached thereto."

Amendments to the article on officers may raise difficulties in relation to the time at which adopted changes take effect, unless special care is taken. A society can, for example, amend its bylaws so as to affect the emoluments and duties of the officers already elected, or even to abolish an office; and if it is desired that the amendment should not affect officers already elected, a motion so specifying should be adopted before voting on the amendment, or the motion to amend can have added to it the proviso that it shall not affect officers already elected. There is virtually a contract between a society and its officers, and while to some extent action can be taken by either party to modify or even terminate the [page 598] contract, such action must be taken with reasonable consideration for the other party.

It is important to note that, although the time when a bylaw amendment takes effect can be delayed by the assembly, the amendment becomes part of the bylaws immediately upon adoption. If the amended bylaws are printed, a footnote or similar device should indicate that the amended language is not yet in effect and, if language was removed by the amendment, the text of that provision should be given if it is still applicable in the organization." 

What is important about the bolded paragraph is that since bylaw amendments take effect immediately upon adoption (or, in your case,  presumably upon approval), the terms of office for officers already in office can be lengthened or shortened by means of a bylaw amendment adopted while they are in office.  Their offices can even be eliminated by means of the adoption of a bylaw amendment eliminating the office.  If that is done, and there is no proviso or other "saving" provision, that position ceases  to exist the instant the bylaws amendment is adopted.

Edit:  I see that you just now supplied some of the key bylaws language regarding amendments.  As to your question about whether the newly elected officers serve a one year term or a two year term, it is my opinion, based on RONR, that the newly elected officers should serve a two year term.  However, only your organization can interpet its own bylaws.  We can help explain what RONR says, but we can't interpret your blaws.  Perhaps it will help if you point out to the members of the appropriate executive and bylaws committees the language I quoted from pages 597-598 of RONR.  Perhaps they are not aware of it.

 

[Guest Guest - Georgia Nonprofit]

This helps a great deal. The officers elected are committed to doing a job, and if it is for two years or one, it really didn't matter. However, it helps to know that the 10 years I have spent with this association have not been a waste, in regards to my understanding of where to find the answers. Thank you all for your assistance. 

[Guest Guest - Georgia Nonprofit]

So this is the reply I received from the bylaws chair, when I sent the information from Mr. Brown's response. I'm still confused because neither council, state, nor National bylaws speak to the effective date of the term of office and it seems to ultimately fall under the interpretation of this current bylaws chair. 

Response:

Citing Roberts Rules as the authority, Section 2, line 18 states "the bylaws comprise the highest body of rules in societies as normally established today. Such an instrument supercedes all other rules of the society, except the corporate charter, if there is one". 

As contained in the council (the association that voted on the amendment change) bylaws:

#ARTICLE XIX: PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITYThe rules contained in the current edition ofRobert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern this council and in all cases in which they are applicable and in which they are not in conflict with these bylaws, the National Bylaws, the Georgia bylaws, or the articles of incorporation. 

ARTICLE XX: AMENDMENTS Section 1. These bylaws may be amended at any regular general membership meeting of this council with the following provisions: (a. - c.) and d. The amendment(s) shall become effective upon receipt of approval from the Georgia Executive Committee. 

Because local units and councils are organized and chartered under the authority of the state association, the bylaws contain the provision that they must be approved by the state association before they become effective.  The amendment does not go into effect immediately, as noted in RONR because it is conflict with the bylaws, the highest body of rule.

[jstackpo]

I would be confused, too.  Heck, I am confused by the reply you got;

Ask the bylaws chair to quote exactly the National Bylaw provision(s) that give him the authority to do what he says he can do.

In particular the one that gives him authority to review and approve/disapprove chapter bylaw amendments.

BTW, his reference to "Section 2, line 18" bears no relationship to RONR.  What is he quoting?

[Dan Honemann]

13 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

BTW, his reference to "Section 2, line 18" bears no relationship to RONR.  What is he quoting?

Although not an exact quote, I think this is taken from RONR, 11th ed., page 14, lines 18-22.

[Gary Novosielski]

The power to interpret bylaws is not reserved to one person, but to the assembly that has the power to adopt them in the first place.  The language of your bylaws would, whatever it means, supersede the language in RONR.  But the opinion of the bylaws chair on the meaning is just that, one person's opinion. 

Even so, the language is not particularly ambiguous.  Apparently, the bylaws do not become effective until approval is received from the higher authority.  That was apparently May 19.

Therefore the new bylaws would affect anyone taking office on or after May 19th.  June 1st is after May 19th.

It seems to me that once approval has been received, it is up to the assembly that adopted the bylaws to interpret them thereafter. They presumably knew what their intentions were in adopting it.   I would ask to see, in writing, some rule that gives the chair of the bylaws committee the unilateral power to interpret your local bylaws, once the approval process is complete.  Presuming that the local assembly had the right to change the terms of office in the first place, which is supported by the fact that the change was approved, the involvement of the GEC appears to be over.  If there is language that contradicts that, let someone produce it.  If there is some review process in place, fine, but it sounds as if the bylaws chair has decreed that he is the self-appointed supreme court.  

I don't think it's workable to have the state bylaws committee chair get involved every time some bit of language in the local bylaws becomes a matter of interpretation.  And I'd need to see the bylaws language that supports any opinion to the contrary.   (If I were a member, which I am not.)  

 

[Guest Guest - Georgia Nonprofit]

20 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

The power to interpret bylaws is not reserved to one person, but to the assembly that has the power to adopt them in the first place.  The language of your bylaws would, whatever it means, supersede the language in RONR.  But the opinion of the bylaws chair on the meaning is just that, one person's opinion. 

Even so, the language is not particularly ambiguous.  Apparently, the bylaws do not become effective until approval is received from the higher authority.  That was apparently May 19.

Therefore the new bylaws would affect anyone taking office on or after May 19th.  June 1st is after May 19th.

It seems to me that once approval has been received, it is up to the assembly that adopted the bylaws to interpret them thereafter. They presumably knew what their intentions were in adopting it.   I would ask to see, in writing, some rule that gives the chair of the bylaws committee the unilateral power to interpret your local bylaws, once the approval process is complete.  Presuming that the local assembly had the right to change the terms of office in the first place, which is supported by the fact that the change was approved, the involvement of the GEC appears to be over.  If there is language that contradicts that, let someone produce it.  If there is some review process in place, fine, but it sounds as if the bylaws chair has decreed that he is the self-appointed supreme court.  

I don't think it's workable to have the state bylaws committee chair get involved every time some bit of language in the local bylaws becomes a matter of interpretation.  And I'd need to see the bylaws language that supports any opinion to the contrary.   (If I were a member, which I am not.)  

 

Here is what our bylaws read: 

Section 6. Officers shall assume their official duties following the close of the school year and serve for a term of 1 year(s) or until their successor is elected.

We voted to amend that statement to 2 years, and at the same meeting we elected officers for the next term to begin after the close of the school year. We submitted to the state (per the provisions in our bylaws) and received approval on May 19, which is when the amendment went into effect for the next term of office. The bylaws chair and the Executive Committee is saying that the amendment cannot be retroacted to the officers elected prior to the approval of the amendment, even though their elected term of office is after the approval was received.

Mr. Novosielski, I do not know how much clearer you could have been stated this. I will take this back to them and see what I get in response. (I really appreciate all of you chiming in on this. It has been such a drag!) 

 

Roberts Rules - bylaws.pdf

[Dan Honemann]

Guest Guest, assuming that nothing in your rules gives some entity other than your membership's assembly the authority to issue definitive rulings concerning the question you have raised, it seems to me that what will happen is something such as this:

At your membership meeting next year when the election of officers would ordinarily occur, a point of order will be raised that an election should or should not be held, depending on what happens (or doesn't happen) at that time, the chair will rule on the point of order, an appeal will be taken from the ruling of the chair, and the question will then be resolved by your membership. Or maybe there will be an occasion to properly raise a point of order concerning the matter prior to that time, for example if a nominating committee is to be created. But in any event, it's your membership's assembly that will ultimately decide this question.

[Richard Brown]

I concur completely with the comments above by Dr. Stackpole, Mr. Novosielski and Mr. Honemann (who is one of the authors of the 9th, 10th and 11th editions of RONR).  

I especially wonder where the bylaws committee chairman gets his claimed authority to arbitrarily make "rulings" regarding your bylaws. As others have stated, I would want to see whatever rule he is relying on that gives him that authority. Lacking such a rule, and in the absence of a contrary provision in your bylaws, your local "unit" has the right, per RONR, to interpret its own bylaws.

However, in your latest post, you made a reference to the executive committee saying the bylaw amendment cannot be retroactive. This may be a critical point: exactly who (what people and what boards or committees) have told you that the bylaw amendment cannot apply to your newly elected officers? It is one thing for the appropriate board or committee, as official board or committee action, to make a ruling and quite a different thing for one person to be making those pronouncements even if it is the chairman. We need to know exactly who is telling you what and whether it is based on an actual board or committee decision or if it is just that person's individual opinion.

BTW , it is undisputed that your bylaw amendments don't take effect until approved by the appropriate state committee. However that is not the issue. Regardless of when a bylaw amendment takes effect, per RONR, once it becomes effective, it absolutely applies to officers then in office and can affect their duties and terms of office. Re-read the provision from RONR that I quoted and highlighted in a previous post. I think that is the point your bylaws chair is missing.

Edited to add: Mr. Honemann made his post immediately above while I was typing this post. I concur with those comments, too.

Edited September 19, 2017 at 05:41 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Guest Guest - Georgia Nonprofit]

11 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

However, in your latest post, you made a reference to the executive committee saying the bylaw amendment cannot be retroactive. This may be a critical point: exactly who (what people and what boards or committees) have told you that the bylaw amendment cannot apply to your newly elected officers? It is one thing for the appropriate board or committee, as official board or committee action, to make a ruling and quite a different thing for one person to be making those pronouncements even if it is the chairman. We need to know exactly who is telling you what and whether it is based on an actual board or committee decision or if it is just that person's individual opinion.

 

This was the response from the President-Elect on the State Executive Committee:

 

Thank you for your email. You are correct in your analysis. The bylaw change did not become effective until it was approved and cannot be made retroactive. Since the election took place at the same meeting and the change was not in effect, those elected must abide by the bylaws that were in place when the election occurred. It does not matter that the changes were approved before the end of the year; that just means they are in effect for any future elections. 

 

Thank you for your clarity and your solid understanding of both our. byaws and Robert's Rules. 

 

My question is now: When would a ruling have happened? Is not there a process that would make a ruling necessary, which would include informing us that such an action would have been transpiring?

 

[Guest Guest - Georgia Nonprofit]

32 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Guest Guest, assuming that nothing in your rules gives some entity other than your membership's assembly the authority to issue definitive rulings concerning the question you have raised, it seems to me that what will happen is something such as this:

At your membership meeting next year when the election of officers would ordinarily occur, a point of order will be raised that an election should or should not be held, depending on what happens (or doesn't happen) at that time, the chair will rule on the point of order, an appeal will be taken from the ruling of the chair, and the question will then be resolved by your membership. Or maybe there will be an occasion to properly raise a point of order concerning the matter prior to that time, for example if a nominating committee is to be created. But in any event, it's your membership's assembly that will ultimately decide this question.

Mr. Honemann, thank you for responding. There is this statement in our state bylaws:

#Section 6. The Georgia _Association shall provide appropriate procedures for the association of local units within Georgia and prescribe the form and content of the bylaws or other articles of association of such local units.

Would this give them the authority?

I will definitely take the information next steps you have provided our Council. Thank you! 

[Gary Novosielski]

There is a huge difference between people who happen to be members of the EC giving their opinion on things, and the EC adopting a motion at a regular or properly called meeting at which a quorum was present, or a ruling issued at such a meeting.  But in either case, the person or body must have the power to do what they seek to do.  In the bylaws amendment process the EC appears to have a role, but one limited to approving of the adopted amendment (or not) presumably based upon its compliance with rules of the parent organization.  Unless that or some other part of the bylaws gives them some continuing review power, they don't have it.

Whether the bylaws provision on term length applies to the act of electing officers, or to the act of assuming office, is a question that can only be answered by carefully reading the language regarding terms of office.  Unless there is some particular reference to elections that would support the committee chairman's interpretation, the standard interpretation, in my view, would be that such a change would not apply to any unexpired terms currently in progress, but would apply once those terms have expired.  Arguments that it should skip a term, or two, or three, become progressively weaker.

[Gary Novosielski]

22 minutes ago, Guest Guest - Georgia Nonprofit said:

Mr. Honemann, thank you for responding. There is this statement in our state bylaws:

#Section 6. The Georgia _Association shall provide appropriate procedures for the association of local units within Georgia and prescribe the form and content of the bylaws or other articles of association of such local units.

Would this give them the authority?

I will definitely take the information next steps you have provided our Council. Thank you! 

It would give them the authority to provide procedures and prescribe the content of the bylaws, but unless they had already issued those procedures or prescribed those requirements, that wouldn't affect your current situation.  

Passing new procedures or new requirements for the bylaws would not be in effect until they had actually issued them.  The EC would, in effect, be hoist upon their own ex post facto petard.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Guest Guest - Georgia Nonprofit said:

My question is now: When would a ruling have happened? Is not there a process that would make a ruling necessary, which would include informing us that such an action would have been transpiring?

The ruling would happen during a meeting of the body with the power to elect the officers.

2 hours ago, Guest Guest - Georgia Nonprofit said:

Section 6. The Georgia _Association shall provide appropriate procedures for the association of local units within Georgia and prescribe the form and content of the bylaws or other articles of association of such local units.

Would this give them the authority?

I don't think this rule, in and of itself, gives them authority to decide this question. In my view, it might give them the authority to intercede if there was a conflict between the local unit's bylaws and the state organization's, but I don't see how it gives them the authority to interpret an alleged conflict within your own bylaws. I suspect your state organization might have a different view on the matter.

I will note that this rule, in and of itself, certainly does not give the state association president or the state bylaws committee chairman, acting as individuals, any role in interpreting a local unit's bylaws.

[Richard Brown]

On 9/19/2017 at 0:51 PM, Guest Guest - Georgia Nonprofit said:

 

This was the response from the President-Elect on the State Executive Committee:

 

Thank you for your email. You are correct in your analysis. The bylaw change did not become effective until it was approved and cannot be made retroactive. Since the election took place at the same meeting and the change was not in effect, those elected must abide by the bylaws that were in place when the election occurred. It does not matter that the changes were approved before the end of the year; that just means they are in effect for any future elections. 

(Emphasis added.  Remainder of post omitted)

 

 

Guest Guest from Georgia:  Nobody is saying the bylaw amendment is retroactive.  Where does the president-elect get that idea?

If you will re-read the three paragraphs from RONR regarding bylaw amendments on pages 597-598 that I quoted in an earlier post, and especially the second paragraph, you will see that RONR plainly says that bylaw amendments can and do affect EXISTING officers and terms of office unless there is a proviso or other provision providing for a later effective date.  Your state president-elect (or bylaws committee chair) seems to be saying that notwithstanding the clear language in RONR, your bylaws amendment does not affect officers currently in office but, in essence, becomes effective only for future elections.  That is contrary to the rule in RONR, which is your parliamentary authority.  I wonder if he actually read that section of RONR.

Your president-elect seems to think that just because a state committee must approve your bylaws amendments before they become effective, that once they approve them, they really don't take effect immediately, but only after the next elections.  That is not a correct interpretation and is clearly contrary to RONR.   It doesn't matter whether your bylaw amendments take effect when adopted or when approved.  They become applicable and binding from the moment they become effective unless they specify a later date.  They do not "skip" a generation of officers.  For example, if a bylaw amendment adds the position of "Sergeant at Arms" as an elected officer , the position is created from the instant the bylaws amendment is adopted... or in your case, from the instant it is approved.  It takes effect immediately, not after the next round of elections.  Your organization can and should proceed to elect a sergeant at arms as soon as possible.  You do not wait for the next round of elections. 

One more point:  It is quite conceivable that your bylaw amendment creating two year terms could be interpreted to apply to the officers who were still in office at the time the amendment became effective.   Even though elections to elect new officers had already been conducted or were about to be conducted when you adopted the amendment (and definitely had been conducted by the time the executive committee approved the amendment),  those new officers were not yet in office when the bylaw amendment was adopted or when it was approved by the committee.  The "outgoing" officers were still in office.  We all know that the intent of the amendment was that it apply to the newly elected officers, but unfortunately it did not contain an effective date or a proviso stating when it would take effect.   Based on the rule in RONR, it could be argued that the amendment actually applies to the outgoing officers and that they now get to serve another year.  If that was not the intent, that issue could be resolved by a point of order and a ruling by the chair and a possible appeal to the assembly.   It is clear to me, however, that an interpretation that the amendment will essentially "skip over" the newly elected officers and will become effective only after those terms expire is not correct and is contrary to RONR.  Per the rules in RONR, it is up to your assembly, not some state officer or committee, to interpret your own bylaws and to determine whether the amendment applies to the newly elected officers or to the officers whose terms just "expired" or to the next group of elected officers. 

Note:  You can also try adopting the same amendment again, or a similar one, with the proviso that it applies to officers currently in office (or the officer positions whose terms began on June xx, 2017).  That should resolve any ambiguity.

And you can do as Mr. Honemann suggested a few posts ago and just do nothing until the time next year when elections would normally occur and see if someone raises a point of order about whether or not an election should be held and deal with it then. I agree that based on what we have seen it should be your membership's assembly to decide the issue (or the chair if there is no appeal). Letting the membership decide it seems the better course.

Edited to add:  Regarding the example I gave about adding the position of Sergeant at Arms as an officer.  That scenario can also be reversed.  Assume you currently have an elected offer position of Sergeant at Arms.  A bylaws amendment can abolish that position by simply striking it out.  From the moment the bylaw amendment becomes effective, the position of Sergeant at Arms is eliminated, even if it is in the middle of a term.  He doesn't get to stay in office until the next round of elections. Your situation of changing one year terms to two year terms works exactly the same way.  It most definitely affects the terms of the officers currently in office unless a proviso provides otherwise.  That does not make it retroactive.  Everything he did while he was sergeant at arms is legitimate.

Edited September 20, 2017 at 08:53 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph