Modifying "Guidelines" introduction to organization's by-laws

[Guest Sharon Cramer]

My organization has a governing document divided into "Introduction," "Guidelines," and "By-Laws." Within the "Guidelines" section is the following statement, "At the end of his/her term,the President serves a two year term as immediate past President [and thereby is a member of the Executive Committee.] I have taken on the role of interim parliamentarian for the organization (which meets three times per year), and have been asked to look at alternatives for how the Past President could remain on the Executive Committee for another two years. In my prior experiences as parliamentarian of other organizations, we have seen guiding documents that are not by-laws as "eligible to be changed" without a formal amendment process (which, within this organization, requires a two-meeting process).

Question 1: Can the strategy described on page 18 of the 10th edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Reivsed, "to adopt a new standing rule without prior notice" for the purpose of a single session be used to extend the term of office of the immediate past President for another two years?

Question 2: Would the strategy of appointing the past President to the role of an ad hoc chair (which is allowed within the by-laws of the organization) be better?

Thank you for your recommendations.

[Shmuel Gerber]

In my prior experiences as parliamentarian of other organizations, we have seen guiding documents that are not by-laws as "eligible to be changed" without a formal amendment process (which, within this organization, requires a two-meeting process).

If something can be changed without a formal amendment process, doesn't that imply that it is of no consequence in the first place? Anyone can write up "guidelines", but the group is not obliged to follow them if they have not been properly adopted.

Question 1: Can the strategy described on page 18 of the 10th edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Reivsed, "to adopt a new standing rule without prior notice" for the purpose of a single session be used to extend the term of office of the immediate past President for another two years?

No.

Question 2: Would the strategy of appointing the past President to the role of an ad hoc chair (which is allowed within the by-laws of the organization) be better?

I'm guessing you mean that he would be appointed as the chair of an ad hoc committee, but it seems unusual to me that the bylaws would make the chair of every ad hoc committee into a member of the Executive Committee.

[Josh Martin]

Question 1: Can the strategy described on page 18 of the 10th edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Reivsed, "to adopt a new standing rule without prior notice" for the purpose of a single session be used to extend the term of office of the immediate past President for another two years?

No. A standing rule cannot conflict with the Bylaws.

Question 2: Would the strategy of appointing the past President to the role of an ad hoc chair (which is allowed within the by-laws of the organization) be better?

Pretty much any strategy is better than violating the Bylaws. If you need an ad hoc committee and you think the Past President is the right person to chair it, that sounds all well and good to me.

[Gary Novosielski]

In my prior experiences as parliamentarian of other organizations, we have seen guiding documents that are not by-laws as "eligible to be changed" without a formal amendment process (which, within this organization, requires a two-meeting process).

Well, the problem is that if they are not "really" by-laws, and are therefore "eligible to be changed" at will, then they are also not sufficiently powerful rules to create or abolish elected offices. You can't have it both ways.

Any rule to create an elected position must be in the bylaws, whatever the name of that document might be, and any attempt to eliminate that position must be subject to the rules on bylaws amendment.

[Thomas Ralph]

And I suggest that you amend your bylaws at the next available opportunity to remove the post of immediate past president. It's a bad idea for several reasons, like if the president gets removed by disciplinary action for being a useless waste of oxygen, only to turn around and say "well, I guess we can have fun in the board for the next two years!"

Nothing stops you from putting language in your bylaws creating a position, with ex-officio board membership, to which only the IPP can be elected. Some other incidental structures will be needed, but they should not be difficult or time-consuming.