Guest EILEEN NORRIS Posted August 8, 2012 at 12:54 AM Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 at 12:54 AM Our organization meets once a year. We have a Constitution and Bylaws. In our Constitution it states: In case of a vacancy occuring in any standing committee, current members shall immediately advance to fill the vacant term and the persiding officer shall appoint an eligible member to fill the longest term. This is a 5 year committeee with the member serving the longest becoming the Chairman. But this year we have a problem - since 4 members have resigned in the last few months, and since our yearly meeting being in 6 weeks, this puts the only member with any time on the committee being Chairman for only 6 weeks since the last member lonly resigned 6 weeks before our yearly meeting. The new members do not want to become chairman in 6 weeks since they have so little experience.Is there some way we can "set aside" that section of the Constitution so that the member now serving (for 4 days at this time) as Chairman can stay on for his 5th year (which would be next year) as Chairman?Our bylaws state that we can amend the Constiltution by a unanimous consent of the Grand Chapter members in attendance and voting at any annual Grand Chapter session. We know that there would be 1 or 2 who would vote against it since these 2 are the cause of so many resigning from the Committee. So we need something that could be passed by 2/3 vote.Anybody got any ideas?Eileenjnen@comcast.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted August 8, 2012 at 02:40 AM Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 at 02:40 AM No, you can't "set aside" the bylaws*. You can amend them, according to the rules contained in them for their own amendment, but until then you have to obey them.I don't pretend to be able to understand the thought process that led up to including that particular rule for choosing the chair, if any, but as long as it's in there, you're stuck with it.__________*Bylaws that are clearly in the nature of rules of order can be suspended, but this isn't one of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted August 8, 2012 at 04:16 AM Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 at 04:16 AM That's the only way to amend the bylaws? One uncooperative member can always stop the whole organization dead in its tracks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted August 9, 2012 at 03:19 PM Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 at 03:19 PM The only way to amend the bylaws is via the process described in the bylaws for their own amendment--usually in an article near the end, or, if the bylaws are silent (which they almost never are) by the rule in RONR.No, it is not typically the case that one uncoöperative member can always stop an organization dead in its tracks. Howver, it is relatively easy to set things up so that's the case, by adopting poorly thought out bylaws. RONR advises against doing that, but sometimes people don't listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sMargaret Posted August 9, 2012 at 04:33 PM Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 at 04:33 PM In case of a vacancy occuring in any standing committee, current members shall immediately advance to fill the vacant term and the persiding officer shall appoint an eligible member to fill the longest term. This is a 5 year committeee with the member serving the longest becoming the Chairman. But this year we have a problem - since 4 members have resigned in the last few months, and since our yearly meeting being in 6 weeks, this puts the only member with any time on the committee being Chairman for only 6 weeks since the last member lonly resigned 6 weeks before our yearly meeting. The new members do not want to become chairman in 6 weeks since they have so little experience.Is there some way we can "set aside" that section of the Constitution so that the member now serving (for 4 days at this time) as Chairman can stay on for his 5th year (which would be next year) as Chairman?You know, I think I'm finding this part of the issue even more confusing than constitution and bylaws that require a unanimous vote to amend.* Is this the chairman of the board that you're referring to, or to a committee?* Is the board considered to be a standing committee?* Is the "one person with any time on the committee" the same person who you're asking if he "can stay on for his 5th year"?* If this is a "5 year committee", why wouldn't he be able to stay on for his 5th year?* Does this mean that people are elected for 5 year terms?* Is there any sort of tie-breaker for the "member serving the longest becoming the Chairman"? What happens if there are two people who have been serving the same amount of time?Our bylaws state that we can amend the Constiltution by a unanimous consent of the Grand Chapter members in attendance and voting at any annual Grand Chapter session. We know that there would be 1 or 2 who would vote against it since these 2 are the cause of so many resigning from the Committee. So we need something that could be passed by 2/3 vote.Or you need to find a way to keep those two members from being in attendance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted August 9, 2012 at 04:55 PM Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 at 04:55 PM Our bylaws state that we can amend the Constiltution by a unanimous consent of the Grand Chapter members in attendance and voting at any annual Grand Chapter session. We know that there would be 1 or 2 who would vote against it since these 2 are the cause of so many resigning from the Committee. So we need something that could be passed by 2/3 vote.I'm tripping up on the "and" above (wouldn't it be better with an "or" in there?). Are there two different methods to amend the Constitution? 1) unanimous consent of the Grand Chapter members in attendance (at what gathering?), or 2) voting at any annual Grand Chapter session? Surely you don't mean a constitutional amendment must receive two approvals, do you? You do reference a 2/3 vote, so I'm assuming (danger is my middle name) that is the vote threshold at an annual GC session, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sMargaret Posted August 9, 2012 at 05:00 PM Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 at 05:00 PM I'm tripping up on the "and" above (wouldn't it be better with an "or" in there?).Doesn't that just mean that they're present and that they're voting (ie, abstentions don't count)? Maybe that's just the easy assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted August 9, 2012 at 06:43 PM Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 at 06:43 PM Doesn't that just mean that they're present and that they're voting (ie, abstentions don't count)? Maybe that's just the easy assumption.Well done, sMargaret. It seems so obvious once you point out how obvious it is. (O-wa ta-goo si-am) Conjunctions trip me up almost as frequently as copulative verbs. Thanks.So, now I wonder where the 2/3 vote enters in, since apparently adoption of the amendment requires unanimous consent. Hmm...... got any ideas on that, sMargaret? (I ask you because I suspect Guest_EILEEN is either unavoidably distracted or has been captured by the Gotcha monster) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sMargaret Posted August 9, 2012 at 07:02 PM Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 at 07:02 PM Well done, sMargaret. It seems so obvious once you point out how obvious it is. (O-wa ta-goo si-am) Conjunctions trip me up almost as frequently as copulative verbs. Thanks.So, now I wonder where the 2/3 vote enters in, since apparently adoption of the amendment requires unanimous consent. Hmm...... got any ideas on that, sMargaret? (I ask you because I suspect Guest_EILEEN is either unavoidably distracted or has been captured by the Gotcha monster)Ever so pleased to be of service. My idea on the 2/3 vote is that it's a simple matter of "we can't get a unanimous vote, but we can get 2/3rds, 2/3rds seems more official in this situation than just a simple majority, and is there any way that we can do this at all, oh please you RONR experts?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted August 9, 2012 at 09:14 PM Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 at 09:14 PM ... oh please you RONR experts?".Mmm ... I bet that's what the OP meant a couple days ago by "RONR staff members" ... us. (What MAD Magazine used to call "the usual gang of idiots." Except then, in the 1950's and 1960's, they would have boggled at the prospect of raking in $4.50 an hour.(... Hmm, kinda somewhat like I do.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted August 10, 2012 at 04:19 PM Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 at 04:19 PM Except then, in the 1950's and 1960's, they would have boggled at the prospect of raking in $4.50 an hour.(... Hmm, kinda somewhat like I do.)You mean they're still only paying you $4.50? The rest of us got a raise back in May. <oops, wasn't I supposed to say anything?> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted August 10, 2012 at 04:22 PM Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 at 04:22 PM You mean they're still only paying you $4.50?I believe the rate of pay is (or should be) inversely proportional to the average number of words per post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted August 10, 2012 at 06:41 PM Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 at 06:41 PM I believe the rate of pay is (or should be) inversely proportional to the average number of words per post.Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.