ending officer position via new bylaw

[stature]

Our organization has bylaws in place that provide for officer positions

with a two year term. The problem is that other changes over the

years have eliminated the need for this one officer position because

there is nothing for the officer to oversee anymore.

It is a paid position. We will have our national meeting in the fall.

Under current bylaws, we have to elect someone to this position.

Under current bylaws, this officer is listed with other positions

as having a two year term. Our bylaws don't allow suspension.

I want to propose a new bylaw to shorten the term of this officer

position now to end it this year(in addition to changing the bylaws

and eliminating this officer position from the list so we'll no longer

be electing this officer position in 2013 two years from now)

The bylaw change I will suggest: "Officer position shall end at midnight

on the last day of 2011".

Question: Is there any problem that the experienced parliamentarians here

can foresee? That is, will there be any violations claimed

given that the people who run for the officer position are doing so under

bylaws that list it as having a two year term? Or is it perfectly fine

to put a new rule in the bylaws that cuts that term short now?

I don't want to see unanticipated claims of violations of rights

under Robert's Rules

I also have been thinking about whether elections fall under the category of

'rules of order' and can be suspended via a motion to suspend the election

of that officer indefinately (that way we could get rid of the position

from this coming election). Or is it a basic right of an individual to run

for that office since its listed in the bylaws, and therefore the

election is not suspendable?

[hmtcastle]

is it perfectly fine to put a new rule in the bylaws that cuts that term short now?

Yes.

I also have been thinking about whether elections fall under the category of 'rules of order' and can be suspended via a motion to suspend the election of that officer indefinately (that way we could get rid of the position from this coming election).

No.

[Rob Elsman]

Our organization has bylaws in place that provide for officer positions

with a two year term. The problem is that other changes over the

years have eliminated the need for this one officer position because

there is nothing for the officer to oversee anymore.

It is a paid position. We will have our national meeting in the fall.

Under current bylaws, we have to elect someone to this position.

Under current bylaws, this officer is listed with other positions

as having a two year term. Our bylaws don't allow suspension.

I want to propose a new bylaw to shorten the term of this officer

position now to end it this year(in addition to changing the bylaws

and eliminating this officer position from the list so we'll no longer

be electing this officer position in 2013 two years from now)

The bylaw change I will suggest: "Officer position shall end at midnight

on the last day of 2011".

Question: Is there any problem that the experienced parliamentarians here

can foresee? That is, will there be any violations claimed

given that the people who run for the officer position are doing so under

bylaws that list it as having a two year term? Or is it perfectly fine

to put a new rule in the bylaws that cuts that term short now?

I don't want to see unanticipated claims of violations of rights

under Robert's Rules

I also have been thinking about whether elections fall under the category of

'rules of order' and can be suspended via a motion to suspend the election

of that officer indefinately (that way we could get rid of the position

from this coming election). Or is it a basic right of an individual to run

for that office since its listed in the bylaws, and therefore the

election is not suspendable?

You might want to take a look at RONR (10th ed.), pp. 578, 579, having to do with the time at which an amendment to the bylaws takes effect and the particular difficulties encountered when changing officers' terms of office, salaries, privileges, etc. If you have questions pertaining to the civil law, you might want to discuss them with an attorney.

[stature]

Thank you for the replies. I think I'll go for a bylaw

to cut the term short then. We're paying for someone

to do nothing. I'd like that job too , who wouldn't,

but in the interests of the organization, its got to go.

[Rob Elsman]

Thank you for the replies. I think I'll go for a bylaw

to cut the term short then. We're paying for someone

to do nothing. I'd like that job too , who wouldn't,

but in the interests of the organization, its got to go.

Read before you act.

[Gerry4000]

How is the compensation of this officer set? Might it be simpler to just cut the pay of the position? I m just guessing, but I wonder if the bylaws set the compensation.

[stature]

How is the compensation of this officer set? Might it be simpler to just cut the pay of the position? I m just guessing, but I wonder if the bylaws set the compensation.

the people at the meeting set the compensation for the

two year term

edit to add: its paid monthly

[stature]

Read before you act.

I'll read and re-read. I'm planning to announce the

proposed change and cc the general counsel of the

organization. I figure if I write it up carefully and

there's still something wrong, the counsel will have

to earn his keep and tell me why.

[Gerry4000]

the people at the meeting set the compensation for the

two year term

edit to add: its paid monthly

Then, at the next meeting, make a motion to rescind/amend something previously adopted that terminates the payment immediately (or, perhaps in 30 days). To pass, the motion would need a 2/3 vote of those present and voting OR a majority of the entire organization (that sets the comensation). The third way is to give advance notice of the motion and then it only requires a majority of those present and voting.

[hmtcastle]

Then, at the next meeting, make a motion to rescind/amend something previously adopted that terminates the payment immediately (or, perhaps in 30 days).

Though one should not confuse the ability to rescind a previously adopted motion with the ability to breach a contract (if one exists).

And I'm not sure where the "30 days" comes from. Thin air?