Consecutive terms

[Guest Ann]

Our bylaws say a person is elected to a three year term and may serve two consecutive terms. We have a board member who served one term and part of another, then resigned for five months, then was reelected to the board. Can that person serve two full consecutive three terms on the board? There is no provision in the bylaws for being off the board then being reelected, is there anything in Roberts that would help clarify the situation?

[David A Foulkes]

Our bylaws say a person is elected to a three year term and may serve two consecutive terms. We have a board member who served one term and part of another, then resigned for five months, then was reelected to the board. Can that person serve two full consecutive three terms on the board? There is no provision in the bylaws for being off the board then being reelected, is there anything in Roberts that would help clarify the situation?

RONR says a person who has served more than half a term is considered to have served a full term. (RONR 11th ed., p. 575 ll. 4-5) So how long did Member X serve for the second term before resigning for five months? And how long has/did the member serve after having been re-elected?

[Guest Edgar]

Our bylaws say a person is elected to a three year term and may serve two consecutive terms.

I suspect that's not the exact language of your rule and, as you might expect, the exact language matters.

To say that someone "may serve two consecutive terms" is not to say that he can't serve three consecutive terms.

In any event, I think his five-month hiatus resets his consecutive clock (since I assume someone else was elected to serve the remainder of his second consecutive term).

[jstackpo]

In any event, I think his five-month hiatus resets his consecutive clock (since I assume someone else was elected to serve the remainder of his second consecutive term).

Well... if the person was in the second term of office for more than 1.5 years (and if he resigned with 5 months to go, that, mathematically, means he was) then he served a "complete" second term and is not eligible to be elected again (assuming that is what the bylaws really say).

Guest_Ann: what is the exact text of your bylaw in this regard?

[Guest Edgar]

Well... if the person was in the second term of office for more than 1.5 years (and if he resigned with 5 months to go, that, mathematically, means he was) then he served a "complete" second term and is not eligible to be elected again (assuming that is what the bylaws really say).

Though we weren't told he resigned with five months to go, we were only told he took five months off. But I may be grasping at straws here so will wait to hear from Guest_Ann_.

[Guest Guest]

The exact wording is "The term of office for a Director shall be no more than three (3) calendar years from the date of his or her election. A Director may not serve for more than two (2) consecutive terms." A Director is a board member. I'll have to go back and research exactly how long was served of the second term but I don't believe it was more than a year.

[Guest Edgar]

"The term of office for a Director shall be no more than three (3) calendar years from the date of his or her election."

While we're waiting to find out just how long he served during his second term, I'll point out that a "calendar year" runs from January 1 to December 31 so, unless the date of election is also January 1, your bylaw is contradictory. I suggest deleting the word "calendar". I'd also suggest deleting the parenthetical numerals (e.g. (3)) since I'm pretty sure everyone knows what "three" means without the extra help. But that's just a pet peeve of mine.

While we're at it, I'm not sure about the "no more than" either. But I'd better stop now.

[Guest Amzxxq]

Generally speaking our bylaws suck (I believe that's the legal term) since they were cut and paste off the Internet without much customization for our situation. We are beginning a complete overhaul of them but for now are stuck with what we have. We have several emeritus members elected without any provision in the bylaws or definition of what their office means. We have emeritus members who hold office and ones who have never been to a meeting. We have a contract with our major vendor that allows them a seat not only on the board but on the Executive Committee so you have an employee of a contract group making policy for us. It's a real mess but one thing at a time. Thanks for any guidance.

[David A Foulkes]

Generally speaking our bylaws suck (I believe that's the legal term)

Could be. I don't know for sure. But we'll go with it.

Thanks for any guidance.

Perhaps the best guidance at this point is to contact a parliamentarian in your area.

Contact either (or both) the ...

National Association of Parliamentarians

213 South Main St.

Independence, MO 64050-3850

Phone: 888-627-2929

Fax: 816-833-3893;

e-mail: hq@NAP2.org

www.parliamentarians.org

or

American Institute of Parliamentarians

550M Ritchie Highway #271

Severna Park, MD 21146

Phone: 888-664-0428

Fax: 410-544-4640

www.aipparl.org

for a reference or information.

[David A Foulkes]

While we're waiting to find out just how long he served during his second term, I'll point out that a "calendar year" runs from January 1 to December 31 so, unless the date of election is also January 1, your bylaw is contradictory.

I'm not sure about the contradictory (yet, but I'm sure you'll illuminate me) but I'd think you could get elected on January 2 2012 and end your first term on Dec 30 2016, and still satisfy the bylaw. But perhaps I'm being too tricky for my own good here.

[Shmuel Gerber]

While we're waiting to find out just how long he served during his second term, I'll point out that a "calendar year" runs from January 1 to December 31 so, unless the date of election is also January 1, your bylaw is contradictory.

I think in this context a calendar year is more likely to mean the time from a particular calendar date in one year to the same date of the next year.

[Guest Edgar]

I think in this context a calendar year is more likely to mean the time from a particular calendar date in one year to the same date of the next year.

You're no doubt correct that that was the intent but the correct term for that is "year". See here for "calendar year".

My point (albeit somewhat labored) was that there was some redundancy, if not contradiction, in the bylaw excerpts cited. As is frequently the case, less is often more.

[Shmuel Gerber]

You're no doubt correct that that was the intent but the correct term for that is "year". See here for "calendar year".

My point (albeit somewhat labored) was that there was some redundancy, if not contradiction, in the bylaw excerpts cited. As is frequently the case, less is often more.

I agree that the word "calendar" is most likely unneeded, but I don't think it's contradictory. One definition of calendar year is "a period of time equal in length to that of the year in the calendar conventionally in use" (although, for this purpose I like my definition better).