need help

[Truckie2033]

I need some info. My department changed its Bylaws that took effect the start of the new year. We vote in december as per the bylaws to aprove or not to aprove the change to bylaws. With that said we added a new officer postion with was a 2nd luetenat and we did away with a 2nd engineer . The changes wer done befor we help the elections at the same meeting, the new line officers take office on the start of the new year aswell. The company has 7 line offices wich they voted and filled 7 line offices , Chief 1St asst Chief, 2nd Asst chief, Capt, lue,1st enigineer and 2nd engineer. All postions wer aproved to take effect by the board . At the start of the meeting this year the president said they had a office that has now been done away with and they need to fill what they called a Vacant postion off 1 st luetenat changine are line up to Chief ,1St asst Chief, 2nd Asst chief, Capt, lue,1 st luetenat ,1st enigineer again leaving us with 7 line offices . The person who was in the 2ng Eng postion has now lost a officers postion should they have not offered the engineer and the 2nd engineer the postion off 1st lue befor considering as a vacant postion. and in past practice when a postion has oppend up the had gone and offered it to the officers in the lower postions from the vacant one to step up and fill that postion and in turn what ever office that was open after the changes was then considerd as the vacant office. the bylaws realy do not read much in to anything of this topic .the only thing cover is as follow

Vacanies shall be filled by election held at a regular scheduled meeting. I hope that i have put this in a way that is easy to under stand the effents that took place

Thanks for the help and input

[Trina]

Do you mean that your group voted to change the bylaws (getting rid of a position called '2nd engineer' and adding a postion called '1st lieutenant')? And that the group then made an error in electing officers by proceeding to elect someone to the soon-to-be-discontinued '2nd engineer' position, and failing to elect anyone to the new '1st lieutenant' position? If so, it sounds as though you have an incomplete election to the new position -- not really the same thing as a vacancy -- and should go ahead and elect someone to the new position. As it happens, it seems that the vacancy-filling provisions in the bylaws also call for an election, so there's probably not much reason to argue about the differences between an incomplete election and a vacancy.

RONR has no hierarchy of succession as you suggest ("in past practice when a postion has oppend up the had gone and offered it to the officers in the lower postions from the vacant one to step up and fill that postion and in turn what ever office that was open after the changes was then considerd as the vacant office") -- any such practice would have to come from your own rules. The only thing that resembles this in RONR is the rule that the Vice President automatically moves into the office of President if the President resigns, leaving a vacancy in the office of VP. There is no other path of succession. Again, though, since what you described is actually an incomplete election, whatever the customary practice has been in the past with regard to vacancies doesn't really apply.

In fact, if your bylaws call for vacancies to be filled by election, it's possible that the past practice used for filling vacancies (moving people 'up' into other positions) was actually in violation of the bylaws.

[David A Foulkes]

In fact, if your bylaws call for vacancies to be filled by election, it's possible that the past practice used for filling vacancies (moving people 'up' into other positions) was actually in violation of the bylaws.

True, but if their custom has been to "offer" the position to a lower ranking line officer, and this custom is in conflict with a written rule (which it surely seems to be), someone should raise a Point of Order in this regard, either to cause the custom to fall to the ground, or to inspire the membership to adopt a special rule of order (or amend the bylaws or standing rules) to retain the customary action. (RONR 11th Ed. p. 19 ll. 9-18)

[Truckie2033]

it has been the custom practice to move the line up and then fill what vacancie left open which has happend on a few diff events in the past years . I think that the person that was voted in to the office that was now removed should be allowed to take the new office and or the 1st engineer office and have that person move up

[Trina]

it has been the custom practice to move the line up and then fill what vacancie left open which has happend on a few diff events in the past years . I think that the person that was voted in to the office that was now removed should be allowed to take the new office and or the 1st engineer office and have that person move up

And what is your question about Robert's Rules?

[Truckie2033]

my question is , Under Roberts rules of order is their anything that talks about having to follow past practices

[Steven Britton]

my question is , Under Roberts rules of order is their anything that talks about having to follow past practices

The role of custom is discussed on Page 19 of RONR/11; Precedent is discussed on Pages 251 - 252.

[Trina]

my question is , Under Roberts rules of order is their anything that talks about having to follow past practices

Yes, custom is given a great deal of respect under RONR. 'However, if a customary practice is or becomes in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a Point of Order citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with.' (RONR 11th ed. p. 19 ll. 9-15)

Moreover, as previously pointed out, the situation you describe is not a vacancy, which is what your previous practice seemed to apply to. A vacancy occurs when someone has been elected to an office, holds the office, and then leaves for whatever reason. What you described in your first post was not a vacancy -- it is more properly called an incomplete election (no one has yet been elected to the new office), so vacancy-filling provisions, whether those are provisions of written rule or provisions of custom, would not apply.

edited to add:

If the majority of members, as well as the various office holders in question, all want to follow the previous practice under these circumstances, that could be done. However, I see nothing that allows enforcement of past practice. For example, if a particular office-holder does not want to resign in order to cooperate with the 'line of succession' you describe, are you suggesting that person be somehow forced to leave office?

[Truckie2033]

yes the president did force the officer that was holding the 2nd engineer postion to leave office wich he was voted in to hold for the year of 2012

in the start of the meeting of december they voted for all bylaw changes which deleted the 2nd engineers spot and added the 1st lue spot

later in the night at the end of that same meeting they voted on the new line officers of the new year for 2012

the president was asked on more then a few times on what will happen with the officer postions changes and they said that the will not do the changes untile the end of the year for 2012 so that the new postions will not take effect till 2013.

at the start of the meeting this year they then changed their mind and removed that person from his office and voted in someone to take the newly formed office wich was a illegel vote due to a motion on the floor with a 2nd to apoint the person who was holding the office they removed wich the president did not hold a vote for and went on and held a special election with out sending notice out befor the meeting informing the member ship of a special election

[Trina]

yes the president did force the officer that was holding the 2nd engineer postion to leave office wich he was voted in to hold for the year of 2012

in the start of the meeting of december they voted for all bylaw changes which deleted the 2nd engineers spot and added the 1st lue spot

later in the night at the end of that same meeting they voted on the new line officers of the new year for 2012

the president was asked on more then a few times on what will happen with the officer postions changes and they said that the will not do the changes untile the end of the year for 2012 so that the new postions will not take effect till 2013.

Unless the bylaws amendment (deleting one office, and adding a different one) contained a proviso delaying its implementation, the amendment took effect as soon as it was adopted. The president has no authority to say that the effect of the amendment will be delayed for any period of time. Apparently the assembly let him get away with this, and failed to elect anyone to the newly created office.

And, no, the person holding the 2nd engineer office wasn't forced to leave office; rather, the office disappeared with the amendment to the bylaws.

at the start of the meeting this year they then changed their mind and removed that person from his office and voted in someone to take the newly formed office wich was a illegel vote due to a motion on the floor with a 2nd to apoint the person who was holding the office they removed wich the president did not hold a vote for and went on and held a special election with out sending notice out befor the meeting informing the member ship of a special election

It does not appear that appointing someone to the new office would have been proper, since an incomplete election must be completed by electing someone. However, the motion should have been clearly dealt with, before moving on to other business. That's water under the bridge at this point.

Notice is not actually required to complete an incomplete election. However, given the confusion caused by the president's course changes, notice would certainly have been a good idea. I assume most members probably assumed the president knew what he was talking about at the December meeting, and therefore did not anticipate an election for the new office at the January meeting. A case might be made, by the membership, that the election was improper (see RONR 11th ed. pp. 444-445, specifically p. 445 ll. 31-33). That still wouldn't put the former 2nd engineer into the new office, but an election with proper notice could be held.

I'm curious whether other posters on the forum will agree that rights of absentees were probably violated in this situation; or whether the general feeling is that the members of the assembly should have been better informed about the consequences of their actions all along.

It might also be appropriate to reprimand the president for his incompetence, whether unintentional or intentional, during these events.

[edited to correct typo]

[Josh Martin]

I'm curious whether other posters on the forum will agree that rights of absentees were probably violated in this situation; or whether the general feeling is that the members of the assembly should have been better informed about the consequences of their actions all along.

No notice is required for an incomplete election (unless required by the organization's rules), so no rights are violated if no notice is sent. I concur, however, that in the circumstances such notice would have been advisable.