Guest Tom Posted October 28, 2011 at 10:50 PM Report Share Posted October 28, 2011 at 10:50 PM Our present President cannot run for President again by our By-laws. So instead of settling for Immediate Past President, he is one the ballot (only one) running for Vice-President. This leaves us a Director short. Is this right, wrong, or indifferent? And where would I find this covered, if at all, in Roberts Rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 28, 2011 at 10:55 PM Report Share Posted October 28, 2011 at 10:55 PM Nothing in RONR would prevent him from being elected to VP. That would have to be in your rules.As for Immediate Past President, RONR has nothing to say about it. That also would have to be a position established in your bylaws. However, the logic of the scenario dictates that the immediate past president (IPP) would be the person who most recently held the position of president. So he would also be the IPP, as well as the VP if elected. If the bylaws don't preclude this, then there you go. He would hold (assuming the IPP is a Director position in your bylaws) two positions. However, he would still only be allowed one vote. (RONR 11th Ed. p. 407 ll. 1-10) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g40 Posted October 28, 2011 at 10:55 PM Report Share Posted October 28, 2011 at 10:55 PM There are many issues here, but the one that jumps out at me is that if he can not run for (or be?) President and one of the main (according to RONR) duties of a Vice President is becoming president if the President dies or otherwise leave, how does it make sense to have someone that can't do the job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 29, 2011 at 12:05 AM Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 at 12:05 AM There are many issues here, but the one that jumps out at me is that if he can not run for (or be?) President and one of the main (according to RONR) duties of a Vice President is becoming president if the President dies or otherwise leave, how does it make sense to have someone that can't do the job?It's an interesting point, although I don't think anything in RONR would actually cause him to be ineligible for the VP position based on the possibility of the president vacating the position. The hope would be the president makes it to the half-term-plus-a-day mark before anything happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted October 29, 2011 at 02:25 AM Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 at 02:25 AM The hope would be the president makes it to the half-term-plus-a-day mark before anything happens.Why that mark? Are you assuming that the bylaw provision in question attaches some significance to that milestone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted October 29, 2011 at 02:29 AM Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 at 02:29 AM There are many issues here, but the one that jumps out at me is that if he can not run for (or be?) President and one of the main (according to RONR) duties of a Vice President is becoming president if the President dies or otherwise leave, how does it make sense to have someone that can't do the job?We don't know what the bylaws prevent this individual from doing, other than taking the original poster's word for the fact that he can't "run" for president. Perhaps he can "walk" into the office from the vp spot. As for it being sensible to elect him, that's for the voters to decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted October 29, 2011 at 02:33 AM Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 at 02:33 AM Our present President cannot run for President again by our By-laws. So instead of settling for Immediate Past President, he is one the ballot (only one) running for Vice-President. This leaves us a Director short. Is this right, wrong, or indifferent? And where would I find this covered, if at all, in Roberts Rules?Your issue is with the bylaw provisions that determine the directors (and presumably the composition of the board). Perhaps you want to rethink giving someone an office based solely on the fact that they previously held an office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 29, 2011 at 02:37 AM Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 at 02:37 AM Why that mark? Are you assuming that the bylaw provision in question attaches some significance to that milestone?(Q2): Yes. I am assuming it has to do with term limits, either according to the number of terms, or possibly (and in conjunction with) consecutive terms.(Q1): Per RONR (11th Ed.) p. 448 ll. 13-15, if the "new" president serves more than half a term, s/he would be considered to have served the full term. If then the president vacated the office, the VP would ascend to the Pres office to fill out the remaining unexpired portion of the term, but it would not be a full term, and thereby might get around that restriction.But we know what happens when one assumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted October 29, 2011 at 02:56 AM Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 at 02:56 AM (Q2): Yes. I am assuming it has to do with term limits, either according to the number of terms, or possibly (and in conjunction with) consecutive terms.(Q1): Per RONR (11th Ed.) p. 448 ll. 13-15, if the "new" president serves more than half a term, s/he would be considered to have served the full term. If then the president vacated the office, the VP would ascend to the Pres office to fill out the remaining unexpired portion of the term, but it would not be a full term, and thereby might get around that restriction.But we know what happens when one assumes. There's no reason to think the restriction is worded in any particular way that would allow that kind of "getting around." I guess that's why it's called an assumption, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 29, 2011 at 11:23 AM Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 at 11:23 AM There's no reason to think the restriction is worded in any particular way that would allow that kind of "getting around." I guess that's why it's called an assumption, though. So, if there were a bylaw restriction against serving two consecutive terms, and the President resigns before the half-way point, and at the next election he was nominated and elected, since he hadn't served a full term the first time around, would he be eligible to serve the second time around? That seems to be what is being said here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted October 29, 2011 at 12:20 PM Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 at 12:20 PM So, if there were a bylaw restriction against serving two consecutive terms, and the President resigns before the half-way point, and at the next election he was nominated and elected, since he hadn't served a full term the first time around, would he be eligible to serve the second time around? That seems to be what is being said here.In your first sentence I don't see the word "full" before the word term. Without that... a term is a term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:37 AM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:37 AM Thanks guys! It gives me a lot to fall back on and think about. This situation involves a real estate board with 64 members, about 30 full time members and about 15 that actually get involved. Our By-laws state that we have our 4 officers (President, Vice-president, Secretary and Treasurer), the Past-President and 7 Directors. Our by-laws presently restricts the President to 2 consecutive terms. Again, thanks for the information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 30, 2011 at 02:23 AM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 02:23 AM Always like to get all the details after the guesswork is done and out of the way. BTW - 1st guess on the CaPtChA!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 30, 2011 at 11:59 AM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 11:59 AM BTW - 1st guess on the CaPtChA!!Congratulations. But the fact remains that it was a guess and that's not the purpose of a fair and reasonable CAPTCHA code. And was it the first guess on the first option or did you cycle through several before finding one where you thought you had a shot at a "first" guess?Ms. Evans, tear down this wall! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:08 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:08 PM It was the first code box presented to me, and I was able to make out the characters correctly so it in fact was no guess at all. This time was not so easy. (#5) And I'd have to say that it appears that with each deciphering failure, the next code presented is even harder to figure out. Guess I'll just sign in. <winky face emoticon here> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:47 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:47 PM It was the first code box presented to me, and I was able to make out the characters correctly so it in fact was no guess at all. This time was not so easy. (#5) And I'd have to say that it appears that with each deciphering failure, the next code presented is even harder to figure out. Guess I'll just sign in. <winky face emoticon here>So, figuring out the captcha codes is something to keep the brain cells cranking on a day when the forum is slow? I'll have to keep that in mind...Or, alternatively, does it kill off a few on each attempt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:59 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 at 12:59 PM I suppose it's about time for the moderator to call this thread to order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.