When do new appointees become members?

[wfdickjr]

BACKGROUND: I am a member of an administrative board that governs the park department in a small midwestern city. The board has nine members. Three new members of the park board are appointed each year by the mayor and city council in accordance with ordinances. The ordinances specify the length of the term in office as three years. The official appointment specifies the beginning date and the ending date of the term in office.

AT ISSUE: "When do new appointees become members of the board?"

POSITION-1: The new appointee is a member as of the beginning date stated on their appointment.

POSITION-2: Parliamentary procedure indicates that new appointees become members only at the first regular meeting of the board following the beginning date of their appointment.

SITUATION: Ordinances and bylaws make no distinction between an appointee whose term has begun and an appointee who has attended their first regular meeting. There is no dispute on that point. City ordinance and park board bylaws do, however, require that Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised be observed where not inconsistent with ordinances or bylaws. The invocation of parliamentary procedure in position 2 above, therefore, takes on the color of law.

QUESTION: Does Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised in fact support position 2 with respect to our situation?

My search of RONR does not seem to support position 2. I am no parliamentarian, however, and would appreciate any comments you care to offer.

Thank you for your consideration.

[hmtcastle]

QUESTION: Does Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised in fact support position 2 with respect to our situation?

ANSWER: No.

[David A Foulkes]

Per RONR, elections (and appointments, I suppose) to office or other position take effect immediately. The exception would be noted in the bylaws or other governing documents, as seems to be in your case. With that in mind, you'll need to determine what your rules mean and how they apply. See page 570-573 (RONR 10th Ed.) for some insights into bylaw interpretation.

[wfdickjr]

The exception would be noted in the bylaws or other governing documents, as seems to be in your case.

Actually, no exceptions exist in our case. As of yet, there is no dispute on that point.

If I understand you correctly, in the absence of any such exceptions, RONR would accept the beginnning date of the appointment as the date an appointee becomes a board member.Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

Thank you very much for your response. I particularly appreciate the specific reference to RONR.

[wfdickjr]

ANSWER: No.

Thank you, sir. Given the number of posts you have made on this forum, I doubt that your simple "No" will be disputed.

[hmtcastle]

Given the number of posts you have made on this forum, I doubt that your simple "No" will be disputed.

One should never mistake quantity for quality.

[Josh Martin]

If I understand you correctly, in the absence of any such exceptions, RONR would accept the beginnning date of the appointment as the date an appointee becomes a board member.Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

As far as RONR is concerned, appointees become board members immediately upon appointment. Any delay would need to be in the organization's rules or in the motion itself. There is certainly nothing in RONR to support the claim that "Parliamentary procedure indicates that new appointees become members only at the first regular meeting of the board following the beginning date of their appointment."

[David A Foulkes]

Actually, no exceptions exist in our case. As of yet, there is no dispute on that point.

If I understand you correctly, in the absence of any such exceptions, RONR would accept the beginnning date of the appointment as the date an appointee becomes a board member.Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

Thank you very much for your response. I particularly appreciate the specific reference to RONR.

Page 430 would be the strongest citation that applies.

[wfdickjr]

As far as RONR is concerned, appointees become board members immediately upon appointment. Any delay would need to be in the organization's rules or in the motion itself. There is certainly nothing in RONR to support the claim that "Parliamentary procedure indicates that new appointees become members only at the first regular meeting of the board following the beginning date of their appointment."

Thank you, Mr. Martin for adding your clear and definite response to that of the others.

The position of all respondents appears to be unanimous and unequivocal.

My sincere thanks to all who have responded.