Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

After the election of the board, can they discharge their function ( as a board) before they are inducted into office?

Guest Steven C. Agraviador

By Guest Steven C. Agraviador
in General Discussion

Recommended Posts

Guest Steven V. Agraviador

Guest Steven V. Agraviador

Posted
Posted

It depends. RONR says that officers take office the moment their election is complete (any induction ceremony would be, well, ceremonial).


 


What do your bylaws say about when the term of office for board members begins?


 


 


Our bylaws does not have specific provisions concerning this.  I think, we need to amend our bylaws.  Thank you very much.


Link to comment
Share on other sites
jstackpo

jstackpo

Posted
Posted

No (pressing) need to amend your bylaws in relationship to when the newly elected Board members take office - RONR covers it for you.

 

Just make the announcement/declaration of the election results (see p. 417 for the proper way to do that) the LAST thing you do at your election meeting. The new board members then are in place (p. 444) and ready to get to work. Then immediately adjourn the meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Edgar Guest

Edgar Guest

Posted
Posted

Just make the announcement/declaration of the election results (see p. 417 for the proper way to do that) the LAST thing you do at your election meeting. 

 

RONR suggests (somewhere) holding elections early in the meeting. Are you suggesting the tellers' report should be deliberately delayed until the end of the meeting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Edgar Guest

Edgar Guest

Posted
Posted

I've never understood the logic of holding elections early, or at least of installing new officers early in the meeting.  Turning over the reins at the end of the meeting makes much more sense.

 

Well, the bylaws can be amended to say that officers take office upon the adjournment of the meeting at which they are elected.

 

I think the rationale behind holding elections early in the meeting is that they may take longer than anticipated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jstackpo

jstackpo

Posted
Posted

 Are you suggesting the tellers' report should be deliberately delayed until the end of the meeting?

 

Sure.  Folks might hang around during all that dull "New Business" to see how things turn out.

 

Also, it is a nice ceremony to declare the election results, hand over the gavel to the new president, give him/her a moment (or more) for a "Thank You, and here is what you are in for under my administration" speech, then adjourn and go home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Richard Brown

Richard Brown

Posted
Posted

It depends. RONR says that officers take office the moment their election is complete (any induction ceremony would be, well, ceremonial).

Well, not exactly.  What RONR says is that an election becomes final if the candidate is present or does not decline or, if he is absent, if he has consented to his candidacy.  It goes on to say that the newly elected officer takes office immediately upon the election becoming final  "unless the bylaws or other rules specify a later time".    It's all on page 444.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Josh Martin

Josh Martin

Posted
Posted

Sure. Folks might hang around during all that dull "New Business" to see how things turn out.

Also, it is a nice ceremony to declare the election results, hand over the gavel to the new president, give him/her a moment (or more) for a "Thank You, and here is what you are in for under my administration" speech, then adjourn and go home.

I can see the value in delaying the time the officers take office until adjournment, but I don't think it is wise to delay the announcement of the results until the end of the meeting. There might be a need for additional rounds of balloting, motions for a recount, or a Point of Order related to the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jstackpo

jstackpo

Posted
Posted

I can see the value in delaying the time the officers take office until adjournment, but I don't think it is wise to delay the announcement of the results until the end of the meeting. There might be a need for additional rounds of balloting, motions for a recount, or a Point of Order related to the results.

 

Perhaps I should have suggested delaying the declaration of the final results, the results that actually complete the election, until near the end when all other (known) business  is taken care of.  Any inconclusive (e.g., no majority) balloting would be announced immediately, of course, so it can be continued.

 

And there is nothing stopping a member from moving a recount, &c., just as soon as the (final) results are announced. Such a motion, I presume, would erect a barrier to the newly elected officers taking office until the matter was cleared up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dan Honemann

Dan Honemann

Posted
Posted

Perhaps I should have suggested delaying the declaration of the final results, the results that actually complete the election, until near the end when all other (known) business  is taken care of.  Any inconclusive (e.g., no majority) balloting would be announced immediately, of course, so it can be continued.

 

 

No, you shouldn't suggest this either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Josh Martin

Josh Martin

Posted
Posted

Perhaps I should have suggested delaying the declaration of the final results, the results that actually complete the election, until near the end when all other (known) business  is taken care of.  Any inconclusive (e.g., no majority) balloting would be announced immediately, of course, so it can be continued.

This only addresses one of my concerns. :)

And there is nothing stopping a member from moving a recount, &c., just as soon as the (final) results are announced. Such a motion, I presume, would erect a barrier to the newly elected officers taking office until the matter was cleared up.

No, there isn't anything preventing a member from raising such a motion, but why put these issues off until the (presumed) end of the meeting, when everyone is ready to go home?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
g40

g40

Posted
Posted

If the election of the board is for board members only and the Bylaws specify that officers are elected/chosen by the Board - then it is unknown who the new officers are or will be until the Board (at a Board meeting) chooses the new officers. For this type of organization, "handing over the gavel" following the results of the board election is not possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Josh Martin

Josh Martin

Posted
Posted

Why?  To avoid the unseemly wrestling match when the newly elected president strides up to the Lectern and attempts to snatch the gavel away from the (now erstwhile) president.

 

The assembly can avoid this by adopting rules providing that the officers take office upon adjournment (or later) or by suspending the rules to provide that the past President shall continue to preside until adjournment. Alternately, the now erstwhile President can gracefully hand the gavel to his successor instead of engaging in unseemly wrestling matches.

 

Even if these methods are unsuccessful, I personally prefer the unseemly wrestling match to the possibility of trying to handle a Point of Order (possibly followed by an Appeal) or a motion for a recount when the members are itching to leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Steven V. Agraviador

Guest Steven V. Agraviador

Posted
Posted

Our law (Phil Republic Act #9520) states . . ."directors shall have a term of two (years) and shall hold office until their successors are duly elected and qualified. Further, the board of directors shall elect from among themselves the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jstackpo

jstackpo

Posted
Posted

Well, when the newbies take office depends on the meaning of "qualified".   Do your bylaws (or the law, for that matter) define the word in this context?  It isn't found in RONR, in the context of an election other than prior qualifications (e.g., member for X years, dues all paid up, previous service, &c) that have to be met to even be a candidate, or serve in office.   And those qualifications have to be specified in the bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Edgar Guest

Edgar Guest

Posted
Posted

If the election of the board is for board members only and the Bylaws specify that officers are elected/chosen by the Board - then it is unknown who the new officers are or will be until the Board (at a Board meeting) chooses the new officers. 

 

This is a good point. Although, per RONR, the newly-elected directors take office upon election, the newly re-constituted board can't act as a board until the next board meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Josh Martin

Josh Martin

Posted
Posted

Our law (Phil Republic Act #9520) states . . ."directors shall have a term of two (years) and shall hold office until their successors are duly elected and qualified. Further, the board of directors shall elect from among themselves the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, . . .

Legal questions are beyond the scope of RONR and this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...