When do board members take office

[Guest MikeF]

When do board members take office? Does it happen right after the annual meeting or the first board of directors meeting following the annual meeting?

[Gerry4000]

When do board members take office? Does it happen right after the annual meeting or the first board of directors meeting following the annual meeting?

What do your bylaws say? Read the bylaws and follow what they say.

if they don't say, then I believe they take office immediately.

[Guest mikef]

The bylaws don't tell us anything.

If this is the case who runs the organization if the president doesn't run for re-election?

[Gerry4000]

The bylaws don't tell us anything.

If this is the case who runs the organization if the president doesn't run for re-election?

What is the governing structure of the organization? Who elects the board and who elects the officers?

I am "guessing" that the members elect the board, then the board elects officers from among the board members at a board meeting? Is this correct?

If so, I presume you mean that the board-elected president does not run for a board position. If so, then the board would/should have an organization meeting immediately (or within a few days) following the meeting of members and elect officers. Those elected officers, I suppose, would run the organization.

[Guest Mikef]

The members elect the board and the board elects the officers at the next board meeting. Wouldn't the sitting officers still be in power until the officers are elected at the next board meeting, even if they didn't run for re-election?

Thanks!

[Gerry4000]

The members elect the board and the board elects the officers at the next board meeting. Wouldn't the sitting officers still be in power until the officers are elected at the next board meeting, even if they didn't run for re-election?

Thanks!

I am a board member and officer of an organization with such structure. My view is that officers do not continue as officers when their term as a board member ends. Check your bylaws for requirements of officers and the term of officers. Does an officer need to be a board member? If yes, then at the moment that officer ceases to be a board member, he/she ceases to be an officer. That is why bylaws of such organizations often state that an organizational meeting of the board must/should be held within so many hours/days of the membership meeting.

[Guest MikeF]

Got it!

Thanks and have a good day!

[Gary c Tesser]

Nice work, Mr 4000. And MikeF, do double-check to see whether the bylaws say (as they would be well advised to) that the officers serve s certain time or (or "and") until their successors are elected. If either of those clauses is there, your problem is solved.

[Gerry4000]

Nice work, Mr 4000. And MikeF, do double-check to see whether the bylaws say (as they would be well advised to) that the officers serve s certain time or (or "and") until their successors are elected. If either of those clauses is there, your problem is solved.

I don't think that solves the issue. Let's suppose that Mr Smith is a board member whose term (as a board member) ends when his successor is elected at the membership meeting on July 15. Mr Smith is also the President, elected in 2010 for a one year term (and until successors are elected) as President. IF the bylaws state that the President MUST BE va board member, then I maintain that such a requirement overrides the "and successor is elected" for the office of president.

[Gary c Tesser]

I don't think that solves the issue. Let's suppose that Mr Smith is a board member whose term (as a board member) ends when his successor is elected at the membership meeting on July 15. Mr Smith is also the President, elected in 2010 for a one year term (and until successors are elected) as President. IF the bylaws state that the President MUST BE va board member, then I maintain that such a requirement overrides the "and successor is elected" for the office of president.

I don't see how we can come down on either side, for sure, when two bylaws conflict. That's so particularly on this, the Robert's Rules Website forum, where we are explicitly discouraged from interpreting individual organizations' bylaws, or outright prohibited from doing so (which one of those, I suppose, depends on the whim of the Wrathful Moderator). As the beginning of the Principles of Interpretation, beginning on p. 570, say, the organization itself must determine the meaning of its bylaws when there is an ambiguity, and that's pretty much all we can tell the Original Poster, MikeF (unless we can give a specific RONR citation to MikeF).

But as long as we've dipped into perilous waters, g4 (may I familiarly call you "g4", for short?), why do you think that the board-membership-requirement overrides the successor statement?

And MikeF, if you're still around, how about it?

[Gary Novosielski]

In my view, if the bylaws state that the membership elects directors, who in turn elect officers from among their number, then when the composition of the board changes, the results of the previous election are no longer in force, and new officers must be elected.

[Gerry4000]

I don't see how we can come down on either side, for sure, when two bylaws conflict. That's so particularly on this, the Robert's Rules Website forum, where we are explicitly discouraged from interpreting individual organizations' bylaws, or outright prohibited from doing so (which one of those, I suppose, depends on the whim of the Wrathful Moderator). As the beginning of the Principles of Interpretation, beginning on p. 570, say, the organization itself must determine the meaning of its bylaws when there is an ambiguity, and that's pretty much all we can tell the Original Poster, MikeF (unless we can give a specific RONR citation to MikeF).

But as long as we've dipped into perilous waters, g4 (may I familiarly call you "g4", for short?), why do you think that the board-membership-requirement overrides the successor statement?And MikeF, if you're still around, how about it?

If there is a board membership requirement for being an officer, then I believe that if/when board membership ends (for whatever reason), that person is no longer an officer based on the board membership requirement. It would be the same reason that in an organization where membership elects officers and a requirement of being an officer is being a member of the organization, that an officer of that organization would cease being an officer if/when membership is lost.

Say, for example, church members of the "XYZ Old Bible Church" elect officers of the church, and a requirement of being an officer of the the church requires membership in the church. Suppose the President of the "XYZ Old Bible Church" converts to being a member of the "ABC New Bible Church", I believe (with the membership requirement) that when the President is no longer a member of the "XYZ Old Bible Church", he/she ceases to be the President. This is a requirement of the office, not an issue of the term of office.

[Guest Nancy N.]

If there is a board membership requirement for being an officer, then I believe that if/when board membership ends (for whatever reason), that person is no longer an officer based on the board membership requirement. It would be the same reason that in an organization where membership elects officers and a requirement of being an officer is being a member of the organization, that an officer of that organization would cease being an officer if/when membership is lost. ...

Nice reasoning. (And, dare I say it, perhaps somewhat more compelling and clearer than Gary Novosielski's, which is some compliment indeed.)

Necessarily, then, taking a step back. I buy that you have refuted Gary T.'s statement that the "until successors are elected" clause is the definitive answer to the question. Would you say that we, on the Internet, can confidently tell Mike what RONR says the answer to his question is? ... or must Mike's organization still interpret their bylaws, with or without the "successors" answer a possibility, but it's more likely that there are no officers between the election that unseats the previous officers, and the board meeting that elects the new officers?

[Gerry4000]

Nice reasoning. (And, dare I say it, perhaps somewhat more compelling and clearer than Gary Novosielski's, which is some compliment indeed.)

Necessarily, then, taking a step back. I buy that you have refuted Gary T.'s statement that the "until successors are elected" clause is the definitive answer to the question. Would you say that we, on the Internet, can confidently tell Mike what RONR says the answer to his question is? ... or must Mike's organization still interpret their bylaws, with or without the "successors" answer a possibility, but it's more likely that there are no officers between the election that unseats the previous officers, and the board meeting that elects the new officers?

Of course, Mike's organization must interpret its own bylaws (as they apply). For whatever it is, or is not, worth - my opinion is what my opinion would be in the similar organization where I am a board member and officer. I do not agree with your suggestion that there are no officers. Any officer that is still a board member would continue as an officer (assuming proper wording in the bylaws). Many/most such organizations have staggered terms for board members as well as many such organizations commonly have long serving board members who serve multiple board terms.

The bylaws of my organization specify that an organizational board meeting of the board must be held within seven days of the membership meeting where board members are elected.