dperiod

Thank you all for your input. The consensus here is unanimous in the thought that the 6 year rule would be applicable and in this situation, I would not be grandfathered. That's what I was trying to understand and you all gave fantastic rationale that helped me better understand this. Greatly appreciated!

I was and would have been eligible to run again at the point that I resigned, and had no idea or reason to think that the bylaws would later be changed to incorporate a bylaw around resignations.

Greetings - hoping someone can clarify something for me. I used to serve on a small board of directors for a non-profit based in Virginia. I resigned my post almost 3 years ago. Many of the officers that were on the board at the time have also either resigned or let their terms go, so it is essentially a new board in place. The bylaws that had been in place at that time were dated 2015. A little over a year ago, the current board put a number of updates and amendments to their bylaws out for membership ratification. It was an all-or-nothing vote, and everything passed. The updated bylaws are as of 2021. One of the bylaws that was added states that any officer that has resigned would not be eligible to run for reelection for 6 years. There is no mention of retroactive applicability in the bylaws, nor was there any mention of retroactive applicability in any of the communications or on the ballot when the membership voting took place. My understanding is that when bylaws have a ratification date, they are applicable from that date moving forward, not automatically retroactive. I reached out to the board president earlier this year to ask about my eligibility to run again in the future (specifically because of this bylaw) and she told me that I was not eligible to run. I pointed out that the current bylaws were not in effect at the time that I resigned, nor was there any mention of retroactive applicability in the current bylaws or any of the communications that went out surrounding them. She responded and said that it was "generally known" that this bylaw was retroactive. The bylaws state that Robert's Rules of Order shall be the governing authority in a situation of dissention. Curious what others' thoughts are on this matter. Thanks.