Board filling vacancies Part II

[George Mervosh]

The Society's bylaws provide the required language (as in the example on p. 578, ll. 11-15) for the Board to fill mid-term vacancies, in all other respects their bylaws are identical to the model bylaws in RONR.

May the society's assembly rescind the Board's appointment and appoint someone else?

[jstackpo]

I'd say "No", unless the officer's term included the "or until..." phrase.

If the assembly wanted to keep the power to fill vacancies, it wouldn't (in the bylaws) have granted the Board "full power..."

[J. J.]

I would say that rescission would be out of order based on p. 308, c., except as provided for in that paragraph. In other words, if the election could be otherwise subject to rescission, i.e. with the term of office "or" clause, the assembly could rescind it.

[jstackpo]

Good Grief! J.J. and I actually agree on something. (Makes me nervous...)

[George Mervosh]

Uh, boys, I mentioned the model bylaws applying to all other aspects of the question because of the "or" clause being in it.

[jstackpo]

Fair enough, if a bit sneaky on your part.

Point well taken. So we all agree. (Makes me even more nervous...)

[Shmuel Gerber]

The Society's bylaws provide the required language (as in the example on p. 578, ll. 11-15) for the Board to fill mid-term vacancies, in all other respects their bylaws are identical to the model bylaws in RONR.

May the society's assembly rescind the Board's appointment and appoint someone else?

Uh, boys, I mentioned the model bylaws applying to all other aspects of the question because of the "or" clause being in it.

George,

I don't understand what you're asking or why you're asking it (other than to get J. J. and John Stackpole to read the new bylaws language in the 11th edition). The sample bylaws state, "The officers shall be elected by ballot to serve for one year or until their successors are elected . . . Officers may be removed from office at the pleasure of the membership as provided in the parliamentary authority."

This means that, as stated on pages 653-654 and referred to on page 574, "the officer in question can be removed from office by adoption of a motion to do so. The vote required for adoption of such a motion is ( a ) a two-thirds vote, ( b ) a majority vote when previous notice (as defined on p. 121) has been given, or ( c ) a vote of a majority of the entire membership—any one of which will suffice."

Why would it matter that the officer was put in place by the executive board to fill a previous vacancy, and why would the society's assembly wish to "rescind the Board's appointment [whatever that means] and appoint someone else", as opposed to removing the person from office and filling the resulting vacancy?

[George Mervosh]

I didn't say it would matter and I didn't say I was the best at posing a question, but I think I clearly understand now what can be done, and that was the point

[Shmuel Gerber]

I didn't say it would matter and I didn't say I was the best at posing a question, but I think I clearly understand now what can be done, and that was the point

OK. You'll have to excuse me for thinking that you actually had some question.

[Shmuel Gerber]

OK. You'll have to excuse me for thinking that you actually had some question.

... And also for not answering it. :-)

I would say that the 11th edition recognizes that it's best not to speak of rescinding an election to office, and therefore the board's appointment cannot be "rescinded," per se. But the officer can be removed in the usual manner, so it's practically the same thing.

[George Mervosh]

... And also for not answering it. :-)

I would say that the 11th edition recognizes that it's best not to speak of rescinding an election to office, and therefore the board's appointment cannot be "rescinded," per se. But the officer can be removed in the usual manner, so it's practically the same thing.

Very helpful......thanks