Guest Betty Posted June 3, 2011 at 04:46 PM Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 at 04:46 PM We have bylaws that state the president, president-elect and vice president shall be eligible to serve only one term in the same office. The recording secretary and treasurer shall be eligible to serve no more than two consecutive years in the same office. The Article heading is Elections.This bylaws section was amended a number of years ago. It previously read that officers were eligible to serve no more than two consecutive terms. The intent for the change was to keep the vice president or president-elect from serving two terms and then not having anyone to move up to the next position.We have a member who has previously served as president, president-elect and vice president serving again as vice president and is seeking the office of President-elect now. However, because "consecutive" is not in the current bylaw after the "only one", we have a member who is questioning the eligibility of the vice president to be serving now and to seek the office of President-Elect. This issue was brought before the parliamentarian prior to the election for vice president last year and she determined that consecutive was implied due to the nature of the second sentence.We are seeking advice on whether or not the vice president is eligible to seek the office of President-Elect and if so, what precedent, rule, etc. we can quote to the questioning member. Any advice would be most helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted June 3, 2011 at 04:54 PM Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 at 04:54 PM We are seeking advice on whether or not the vice president is eligible to seek the office of President-Elect and if so, what precedent, rule, etc. we can quote to the questioning member.The proper interpretation of bylaws requires reading them in their entirety, something that's beyond the scope of this forum. Excerpts or, worse, paraphrases just won't do.If your bylaws are ambiguous, it's up to your members to figure them out (and then fix them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Betty Posted June 3, 2011 at 05:01 PM Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 at 05:01 PM The proper interpretation of bylaws requires reading them in their entirety, something that's beyond the scope of this forum. Excerpts or, worse, paraphrases just won't do.If your bylaws are ambiguous, it's up to your members to figure them out (and then fix them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 3, 2011 at 05:04 PM Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 at 05:04 PM In your opinion can this person run for office? Can the word consecutive be implied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted June 3, 2011 at 05:08 PM Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 at 05:08 PM See Mr. Mountcastle's reply - #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted June 3, 2011 at 05:41 PM Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 at 05:41 PM The intent for the change was to keep the vice president or president-elect from serving two terms and then not having anyone to move up to the next position.A president-elect, by Robert's rules, automatically moves into the position of president at the end of his term. When you have a president-elect of this kind, he does not serve a second consecutive term in the same office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.