Guest Jenny Posted July 9, 2012 at 05:54 PM Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 at 05:54 PM re term of officeA person is elected to the position of Chair of a particular area, eg Chair of Membership. The previous chair decides to stay on and be co chair to help the new chair get familiar with the position.This new chair is elected for a term of 2 years and entitled co-chair.Regardless of being a co-chair, you are still in office for 2 years and your term is up at the end of two years...correct or not???thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 9, 2012 at 06:13 PM Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 at 06:13 PM Well, there is no such thing as a co-chair in RONR, so the concept would have to be defined in your bylaws, along with all the necessary details to answer your own questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 9, 2012 at 06:15 PM Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 at 06:15 PM re term of officeA person is elected to the position of Chair of a particular area, eg Chair of Membership. The previous chair decides to stay on and be co chair to help the new chair get familiar with the position.This new chair is elected for a term of 2 years and entitled co-chair.Regardless of being a co-chair, you are still in office for 2 years and your term is up at the end of two years...correct or not???thank youMore "not" than correct. If the individual was elected chair, as you say, that's what he is, not a co-chair. The person who left the office is not a co-chair, by his own authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted July 10, 2012 at 05:15 AM Report Share Posted July 10, 2012 at 05:15 AM re term of officeA person is elected to the position of Chair of a particular area, eg Chair of Membership. The previous chair decides to stay on and be co chair to help the new chair get familiar with the position.This new chair is elected for a term of 2 years and entitled co-chair.Regardless of being a co-chair, you are still in office for 2 years and your term is up at the end of two years...correct or not???Not.When a candidate is elected, the former office holder is no longer in office. There is no such thing as a co-chair in RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted July 10, 2012 at 11:35 AM Report Share Posted July 10, 2012 at 11:35 AM ...A person is elected to the position of Chair of a particular area, eg Chair of Membership. The previous chair decides to stay on and be co chair to help the new chair get familiar with the position......This part is just weird. Certainly the previous office holder might offer advice, and the new office holder might be happy to accept advice. However, "decides to stay on" makes no sense -- where does the previous chair get the right to do this? Remember how Bill Clinton decided to stay on as co-president when Bush the Second arrived at the White House? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sMargaret Posted July 10, 2012 at 03:22 PM Report Share Posted July 10, 2012 at 03:22 PM Is it the previous chair's contention that he or she is now co-chair for life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted July 11, 2012 at 11:19 AM Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 at 11:19 AM re term of officeA person is elected to the position of Chair of a particular area, eg Chair of Membership. The previous chair decides to stay on and be co chair to help the new chair get familiar with the position.This new chair is elected for a term of 2 years and entitled co-chair.Regardless of being a co-chair, you are still in office for 2 years and your term is up at the end of two years...correct or not???thank youI've been mulling this over, and I wonder if the statement that "the previous chair decides to stay on and be co chair" is giving the wrong impression of the events in this organization. Or at least the wrong impression of the part played by the previous chair in the drama. Perhaps this is simply a case where the organization had trouble finding a new person to fill a particular office, and fell into the fairly common error of assuming that two people could share the office to lighten the load.Let's say Mary has been membership chair for years, and doesn't want the job again. Elections are coming up and efforts are made to find someone else willing to run for the office, but absolutely no one wants to volunteer. At the eleventh hour, member Muriel reluctantly says she might be willing to do the membership job, but she is uncertain about managing all the details, and won't volunteer unless she gets some help. Mary offers to stay on for a while to show Muriel the ropes. No more willing candidate is found, so the organization limps into the election with this arrangement 'formalized' -- the members are told that Muriel and Mary will handle membership as co-chairs. The other members are relieved that someone has stepped up to fill the office, and quickly give their stamp of approval when it comes time to vote. No one realizes that co-chairs are not actually possible under the organization's bylaws.Guest_Jenny, is something like this behind your question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintCad Posted July 11, 2012 at 01:31 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 at 01:31 PM Let me ask you a question. If Murial and Mary disagree on something, who has the final say? That person is the Chair and the other person is not. If one person does not have final authority, how do you not see this as a problem waiting in the wings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 11, 2012 at 02:27 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 at 02:27 PM Let me ask you a question. If Murial and Mary disagree on something, who has the final say? That person is the Chair and the other person is not. If one person does not have final authority, how do you not see this as a problem waiting in the wings?The committee has final say inside a committee meeting, since any member can appeal from a decision of the chair. It's not practical for more than one person to preside over the same meeting at the same time, no matter how the assembly unwisely elected them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintCad Posted July 11, 2012 at 03:32 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 at 03:32 PM The committee has final say inside a committee meeting, since any member can appeal from a decision of the chair.It's not practical for more than one person to preside over the same meeting at the same time, no matter how the assembly unwisely elected them.That's what I meant. You phrased my question better than I did. I was thinking of addressing Points of Order, recognizing people, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.