Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

RONR93

Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

RONR93's Achievements

  1. The new language does not differentiate between appointed terms and elected terms. The specific language is "They serve a term of two years for no more than two consecutive terms at a time." We have a provision that the election must take place within a certain timeframe. It does not specify in the bylaws or the provio that time served does not count. Thanks!
  2. Hello everyone! My organization made a change from an officer being appointed to elected. The position has not changed with respect to how it fits into the governance structure just that it is now an elected position. With that change, the organization adopted term limits that are consistent with the terms for elected officers. Previously, terms of service were completely at the discretion of the person appointing them however frequently followed the same term of the person making the appointment, who has always been an elected officer. Questions have been raised regarding whether a member who has already served the term limits as an appointed officer can run for a consecutive term as an elected officer. Some questions are 1) Is there a difference in serving the term as an appointed vs. an elected officer? and 2) Does the fact that there has been no defined term previously, suggest that the time served would not count with this change. Thank you for your feedback!
  3. I am seeking assistance with RONR 49:7 which indicates that "Except in matters placed by the bylaws exclusively under the control of the board, the society's assembly can give the board instructions which it must carry out, and can rescind or amend any action of the board if it is not too late." In this regard, is it fair to interpret that items that are expressly stated as "responsibilities of the board" in the bylaws meet the criteria as "exclusively under the control of the board", regardless of whether that statement or the word exclusive is specifically stated?
  4. Thanks, Josh. In applying RONR, should we view a term as 2 years, as defined in the bylaws; or 4 years which is the period for which they are elected. This is nuanced because of the staggered nature of the roles. If we base it on 2 years, it would be viewed as 1 term served. If elected for the position, they would be eligible to serve another 2 years. This would disrupt the staggering of positions. If we base it on 4 years, the officer would not have completed half of a 4 year term, and would be eligible to run for the usual 4 years (2 consecutive terms). This would maintain the staggering of positions. This approach seems more consistent with RONR and the intentions of the bylaws. I'd appreciate your view.
  5. The bylaws define a term of office as two (2) years. For certain positions, the individual is elected to automatically serve 2 consecutive terms for a total of 4 years. It is the intent that the individuals in this position have staggered terms where all members serve for 4 consecutive years, half elected every two years. Members are not eligible for re-election once they serve the 4 years. In this case, when an individual completes a vacancy and only serves for part of the 4 years please provide guidance on whether we should view a term as 2 or 4 years when considering the eligibility of someone who has served a partial term (e.g. 1.5 years) to run for a full term in the next election. Thank you!
  6. I am looking to understand solutions for groups who have already conducted elections. Also, it would be good to understand if it is appropriate to backdate the effective timing of an amendment, in general. This could come up in other situations should you want something to go into effect for a full reporting year versus mid-year or the next reporting year.
  7. Can a bylaw amendment have an effective date that is backdated? I am testing creative solutions to addressing actions taken due to the pandemic for societies that did not have electronic meetings in their bylaws. For example, if a group moved forward with hosting meetings electronically, including actions taken by the body, like elections), could this be a solution? Let me know your thoughts!
  8. As it relates to Covid-19, if the general assembly is meeting electronically when the bylaws do not authorize it, is it still necessary for the actions taken to be ratified once that same body is able to return to meeting in person? This is assuming that all other proper steps were taken to call the meeting, a quorum is present and the electronic meeting is conducted in accordance with RONR guidelines. Technically, this would not meet the requirements for ratification as described in RONR p. 124. What steps, if any need to be taken regarding business transacted?
×
×
  • Create New...