Chris Harrison Posted November 8, 2011 at 04:05 PM Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 at 04:05 PM Let's say there is an organization that meets weekly and the President and VP have announced that both of them will be out of town for the next 4 meetings. So the organization goes through the process on p. 453 for electing a Chair pro tem for those 4 meetings and then at some point in those 4 weeks the President gets back in town and shows up at the meeting. Would the fact that the assembly elected a Chair pro tem for those 4 weeks in any way interfere with the President's ability to take the chair at the meeting he showed up for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted November 8, 2011 at 04:26 PM Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 at 04:26 PM ...Would the fact that the assembly elected a Chair pro tem for those 4 weeks in any way interfere with the President's ability to take the chair at the meeting he showed up for?I don't think so. The description of the process for electing a chair pro tem over multiple sessions just adds a notice requirement -- it doesn't seem to change the conditions that terminate the office of chair pro tem. I think this further implies that if the president showed up during the week 3 meeting, but then was absent again during week 4, the assembly would have to elect a chair pro tem again (the previously elected chair pro tem wouldn't just be re-activated, so to speak). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted November 8, 2011 at 05:06 PM Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 at 05:06 PM I don't think so.I don't think so either. I think this further implies that if the president showed up during the week 3 meeting, but then was absent again during week 4, the assembly would have to elect a chair pro tem again (the previously elected chair pro tem wouldn't just be re-activated, so to speak).I would think that if the assembly elected a Chair pro tem for 4 weeks that the pro tem would would preside if the P or VP weren't there but I could see the other side of the coin. Would be interesting to see what the others think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted November 8, 2011 at 08:42 PM Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 at 08:42 PM If a chair pro tem is elected for (what is anticipated to be) a single session, that "office is terminated by the entrance of the president or a vice-president..." (RONR 11, p. 453 ll. 8-9). If the president (and we'll assume for this argument no VP's attending), then leaves mid-meeting, would the assembly not have to elect a chair pro tem again? If so, would not the same concept apply at the week 3 meeting, the chair pro tem's "term of office" being terminated upon the president's entrance at the week 3 meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayW Posted November 9, 2011 at 03:07 PM Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 at 03:07 PM Could you instead elect a chair pro tem for each of the next four meetings? As in, rather than "Frank will be chair pro tem for the next four meetings", vote that "Frank will be chair pro tem for the meetings on November 14, November 21, November 28, and December 5" (maybe in four separate votes?). Then if the president/VP show up at the November 28 meeting, it will terminate the chair pro tem for that meeting, but if neither is present on December 5 Frank has already been elected to the position for that specific date so there's no need to do a new election.(If I'm not explaining that well, the difference would be electing a chair pro tem for four one-day terms, rather than one four-week term.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted November 9, 2011 at 03:23 PM Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 at 03:23 PM Is adopting the motion Chris desribes, regardless of the reasons behind it, a Special Rule of Order, albeit one that would expire at the end of meeting #4? (not rhetorical) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 10, 2011 at 01:17 AM Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 at 01:17 AM Could you instead elect a chair pro tem for each of the next four meetings? As in, rather than "Frank will be chair pro tem for the next four meetings", vote that "Frank will be chair pro tem for the meetings on November 14, November 21, November 28, and December 5" (maybe in four separate votes?). Then if the president/VP show up at the November 28 meeting, it will terminate the chair pro tem for that meeting, but if neither is present on December 5 Frank has already been elected to the position for that specific date so there's no need to do a new election.(If I'm not explaining that well, the difference would be electing a chair pro tem for four one-day terms, rather than one four-week term.)I believe the motion you describe would be in order, but I don't think it's necessary. I agree with Chris H. that the Chairman Pro Tem would preside at the fourth meeting if the P and VP were absent, even if one of them had shown up at the 3rd meeting.Is adopting the motion Chris desribes, regardless of the reasons behind it, a Special Rule of Order, albeit one that would expire at the end of meeting #4? (not rhetorical)No. The motion Chris describes (as it stands) does not supersede any rule in RONR - indeed, it follows a specific procedure provided by RONR.If the assembly wished to have the appointed Chairman Pro Tem take precedence over the P and VP for multiple sessions, that would require a Special Rule of Order (and such a rule would only be in order if it did not conflict with the Bylaws). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted November 10, 2011 at 01:32 PM Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 at 01:32 PM If the assembly wished to have the appointed Chairman Pro Tem take precedence over the P and VP for multiple sessions, that would require a Special Rule of Order (and such a rule would only be in order if it did not conflict with the Bylaws).Ok, yes, that's what I was thinking. I need to stick more closely to the exact question asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted November 10, 2011 at 01:55 PM Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 at 01:55 PM I believe the motion you describe would be in order, but I don't think it's necessary. I agree with Chris H. that the Chairman Pro Tem would preside at the fourth meeting if the P and VP were absent, even if one of them had shown up at the 3rd meeting....Does it then follow that if a chair pro tem is elected just to preside at a single session, and the President walks in mid-meeting, the office of the chair pro tem is not totally and entirely terminated at that point? In other words, suppose the President gets an emergency phone call half an hour after his arrival, and has to rush off. By your argument (I think) the previously elected chair pro tem takes over again, with no further action required by the assembly. Is that the case, despite the fact that p. 453 says that 'such office is terminated by the entrance of the president...' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 10, 2011 at 11:04 PM Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 at 11:04 PM Does it then follow that if a chair pro tem is elected just to preside at a single session, and the President walks in mid-meeting, the office of the chair pro tem is not totally and entirely terminated at that point? In other words, suppose the President gets an emergency phone call half an hour after his arrival, and has to rush off. By your argument (I think) the previously elected chair pro tem takes over again, with no further action required by the assembly. Is that the case, despite the fact that p. 453 says that 'such office is terminated by the entrance of the president...' ?Well, I suspect that in the usual case (when the P and VP are not present), the assembly simply elects a Chairman Pro Tem to preside and doesn't make much ado about how long the appointment is for. It is simply understood that the appointment lasts until the P or VP arrives, or the session ends, whichever comes first. In the case of electing a Chairman Pro Tem for multiple sessions, however, the specific term of the appointment would be specified in the motion. While such an appointment is not sufficient to override the rule in RONR that the P and VP are the first in line to preside (since it is not a special rule of order), it does mean that the term does not end until the time specified in the motion. That, I think, is what distinguishes the multiple-session appointment from the usual case.So to answer your second question, I believe that in the usual case, the assembly would need to elect a new Chairman Pro Tem in the situation you describe (although I expect the previous person would be the likely choice if he hadn't bungled the job). The assembly could, if it wished, specifically state in the motion that the appointment would last for the duration of the session, and in that case the Chairman Pro Tem would take up presiding again when the President rushes off for his phone call. I suspect, however, that there would rarely be a reason for the assembly to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.