Guest John D Posted February 14, 2011 at 05:38 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 at 05:38 PM I understand that when a president resigns his position that the VP will take on the office of president and a vacancy will exist at the VP level. Are we required to backfill the VP role if vacancy filling provisions do not exist in our by-laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted February 14, 2011 at 05:45 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 at 05:45 PM I understand that when a president resigns his position that the VP will take on the office of president and a vacancy will exist at the VP level. Are we required to backfill the VP role if vacancy filling provisions do not exist in our by-laws?I am not completely sure what you mean by "backfill" but if the bylaws don't have a vacancy filling provision then whichever body elected the VP would fill the vacancy. However, previous notice would be needed before the vacancy can be filled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John D Posted February 14, 2011 at 05:51 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 at 05:51 PM Sorry, by "backfill" I meant are we required to have a special election to fill the VP role or can we decide to move forward without a VP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted February 14, 2011 at 06:09 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 at 06:09 PM Sorry, by "backfill" I meant are we required to have a special election to fill the VP role or can we decide to move forward without a VP?I would say that the vacancy should be filled. However, depending on how much time is left until the next election for VP, what the administrative (extra-meeting) duties of the President and VP are, whether the (new) President has a good record of showing up at the meetings, how difficult it would be to get the Membership together to fill the vacancy, etc you might be able to get away with no VP for a short period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John D Posted February 14, 2011 at 06:18 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 at 06:18 PM I would say that the vacancy should be filled. However, depending on how much time is left until the next election for VP, what the administrative (extra-meeting) duties of the President and VP are, whether the (new) President has a good record of showing up at the meetings, how difficult it would be to get the Membership together to fill the vacancy, etc you might be able to get away with no VP for a short period of time.OK thank you. To be clear what you are saying is that it is NOT required to fill the vacancy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted February 14, 2011 at 06:30 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 at 06:30 PM OK thank you. To be clear what you are saying is that it is NOT required to fill the vacancy?I wouldn't say that exactly. The vacancy should be filled ASAP. However, depending on circumstances it might be impractical or overly difficult to try to fill the vacancy with only a few months left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 14, 2011 at 08:37 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 at 08:37 PM OK thank you. To be clear what you are saying is that it is NOT required to fill the vacancy?No, what he actually said was, "I would say that the vacancy should be filled."That's almost the same except it didn't have the word NOT in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 14, 2011 at 11:45 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 at 11:45 PM To be clear what you are saying is that it is NOT required to fill the vacancy?The vacancy should be filled if it is at all practical to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted February 15, 2011 at 12:15 AM Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 at 12:15 AM The vacancy should be filled if it is at all practical to do so.And if it's not practical, the rules should be changed so that it is.Eight presidents served without a Vice President due to having themselves succeeded to that position from the Vice Presidency, before the 25th Amendment allowing the appointment of a new one.John Tyler Millard Fillmore Andrew Johnson Chester Arthur Theodore Roosevelt (until Mar 4, 1905) Calvin Coolidge (until Mar 4, 1925) Lyndon B Johnson (until Jan 20, 1965) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 15, 2011 at 02:51 AM Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 at 02:51 AM And if it's not practical, the rules should be changed so that it is.Eight presidents served without a Vice President due to having themselves succeeded to that position from the Vice Presidency, before the 25th Amendment allowing the appointment of a new one.John Tyler Millard Fillmore Andrew Johnson Chester Arthur Theodore Roosevelt (until Mar 4, 1905) Calvin Coolidge (until Mar 4, 1925) Lyndon B Johnson (until Jan 20, 1965)What about Truman? Oh, that would make eight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted February 15, 2011 at 02:58 AM Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 at 02:58 AM What about Truman? Oh, that would make eight.That's what I get for not citing my source. I didn't even notice that only seven were listed. Good catch.http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_president_had_no_vice_president Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.