wwdslovene Posted March 30, 2011 at 09:38 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 at 09:38 PM Our board is confronted with a curious dilemma. Our bylaws call for a nominations committee, one of the members of which is automaticallythe immediate past president. By custom the immediate past president usually chairs the nominations committee.Our president resigned in a fit of anger recently, and the president elect filled the position. Now the immediate past president became amember of the nominations committee.I argued that the now immediate past president should not have expected to occupy a place on the nominations committee until his term as president would have ended. Nor should he expect to chair the nominations committe since that position is currently occupied.Your expert opinions will be much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry4000 Posted March 30, 2011 at 09:42 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 at 09:42 PM Our board is confronted with a curious dilemma. Our bylaws call for a nominations committee, one of the members of which is automaticallythe immediate past president. By custom the immediate past president usually chairs the nominations committee.Our president resigned in a fit of anger recently, and the president elect filled the position. Now the immediate past president became amember of the nominations committee.I argued that the now immediate past president should not have expected to occupy a place on the nominations committee until his term as president would have ended. Nor should he expect to chair the nominations committe since that position is currently occupied.Your expert opinions will be much appreciated.You will have to interpret your bylaws, but taking what you quote at face value, it seems that your "immediate past president" is the one who resigned as president in the fit of anger. If you don't want this result, perhaps you should change your bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted March 30, 2011 at 09:44 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 at 09:44 PM Our board is confronted with a curious dilemma. Our bylaws call for a nominations committee, one of the members of which is automaticallythe immediate past president. By custom the immediate past president usually chairs the nominations committee.Our president resigned in a fit of anger recently, and the president elect filled the position. Now the immediate past president became amember of the nominations committee.I argued that the now immediate past president should not have expected to occupy a place on the nominations committee until his term as president would have ended. Nor should he expect to chair the nominations committe since that position is currently occupied.Your expert opinions will be much appreciated.Your answers are contained in your bylaws. Each organization decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws. If ambiguities exist, see RONR(10th ed.), p. 570-573 for some principals of interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted March 31, 2011 at 12:34 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 12:34 AM Our bylaws call for a nominations committee, one of the members of which is automaticallythe immediate past president.Okay. So your question regards your own bylaws. Your question is not anything based on Robert's Rules of Order.By custom the immediate past president usually chairs the nominations committee.Okay.That is not a written rule.You can appoint anybody as chair of your Nom. Comm., since you have no rule to interfere.So this is not a real problem, but a self-imposed problem -- so far.Our president resigned in a fit of anger recently, and the president elect filled the position. Now the immediate past president became a member of the nominations committee.Yep.Per your own rule.Not per Robert's Rules of Order.I argued that the now immediate past president should not have expected to occupy a place on the nominations committee until his term as president would have ended.Q. How do you expect to argue that position in a sane and rational manner, and yet simultanously OBEY YOUR BYLAWS?Q. Are you saying, your bylaws are to be directly disobeyed, despite the clear rule?Nor should he expect to chair the nominations committee since that position is currently occupied.Agreed.If there already is a sitting chairman, then you have no rule (and Robert's Rules of Order has no rule) un-seating one chairman and installing a new chairman, automatically, based on no vote, no motion, no approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 31, 2011 at 12:34 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 12:34 AM I argued that the now immediate past president should not have expected to occupy a place on the nominations committee until his term as president would have ended. Nor should he expect to chair the nominations committe since that position is currently occupied.Your expert opinions will be much appreciated.Well, the bad news is that you will not find any support for that argument in RONR.The good news is that you will not find anything to contradict it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.