Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Bylaws versus motion question over an officer term


Guest Alan Brundleman

Recommended Posts

Our organization elects officers every odd numbered year, with a term lasting two years. This detail is clearly stated in the bylaws. Last year when approving the officer roster, the president informed the board he planned only to serve for one more year. This detail was captured in the slate our board voted on. Over the past year, the president has reconsidered his position and would like to complete the two year term. I'll disclose there is some discontent on this board. My question is, does the motion accepting the officer slate hold and the president is simply out, or given they were elected does this individual have a right to compete their term per the bylaws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This detail was captured in the slate our board voted on.

Which means what? You elected someone to serve the second year of the president's term based on the president's indication he'd resign after one year but, in fact, he hasn't resigned? I'd say he's still your president though the whole process of "slates" and "rosters" is a bit strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply, Edgar. I'm not an expert on this by any means. I will try to clarify what happened. When soliciting nominations for the 2011-2013 board positions, the current president was the only one nominated for that position. He accepted the nomination, but declared at the time he only wanted to serve one year. We ended up voting on the final list (roster, slate...maybe I'm not using the right word) of officers, and the president's intent to serve only one year was captured in the motion. Please clarify if the procedure itself is not according to RR, if that is what you're suggesting. Is there language in RRONR that would help guide this group to that conclusion? Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We ended up voting on the final list (roster, slate...maybe I'm not using the right word) of officers, and the president's intent to serve only one year was captured in the motion.

So you elected the president to a one-year term even though the bylaws establish a two-year term? I'm thinking that might have been out of order. Do your bylaws specify that officers are elected (by the board?) to two-year terms? If so then I don't think you can elect them to one-year terms (or three-year terms). The only option is for an officer to resign after one year which, apparently, your president hasn't done.

What to do about the improper "one-year" election? Stand by for input from some of the other regulars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sMargaret--The motion that the board voted on was really an election, I guess, since it was to approve the slate of officers proposed therein. Next to the president's name the minutes show text "will serve only one year".

@ Edgar--Some board members interpret they voted the president in for only a one year term. The president declares he was disclosing his intent to hand over the position after a year, but has reconsidered. He believes he has the right to finish out his term. Since our bylaws state RRONR as our governing parliamentary procedure, I'm hoping this issue can be resolved by a logical presentation of the rules either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be a number of peculiarities in the process. For example - the President approved "the officer roster"? Your board votes on who replaces them as a board, not general members? Did anyone run opposite the President - did the text on the ballot(?) actually affect anyone's vote?

So much of this is not done in accordance with RONR (but may be done in accordance with your own bylaws).

I throw out, as a suggestion, that if someone is elected to a two year term, and the only type of term in the bylaws is a two year term, that is what he is elected to. However, your board or members could then take action to remove him, based on his broken promise to serve on one term. See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some board members interpret they voted the president in for only a one year term.

But there is no one-year term. I'd say he was elected to a two-year term, the only term there is (the note that he "will serve only one year" is moot). At least that's my opinion. But, again, stay tuned.

And even if this had been legitimate (which I don't think it was) the president couldn't simply "hand over" the position. The vice-president would automatically become president and you'd need to fill the vacancy in the vice-president's office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right, Edgar, the general members elect the board members and then the board elects the officers.

So the members elected people to the board, for two year terms, and then the board votes on who fills which position? What do your bylaws say about that?

My answer may change - perhaps current President was elected to Board, for two year term, but the Board could have the option of changing his position on the Board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our organization is divided by chapters. Each chapter has a chapter "board", elected by the members. The president of each chapter, along with an additional representative per every 50 members belonging to a chapter (also elected by the members) sit as directors on our state board. State board members elect the officers for a two year term every odd numbered year per the bylaws. The bylaws explicitly state the president position is a 2 year term. And there exists no language in the bylaws that allow for an election to oust the current president (the text you pointed me to above). Our bylaws also state that the past president sits on the board as an adviser, buy they have no vote. So I don't think the option of switching positions is available. Hope that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if the bylaws specify one-year terms, no motion (or election) is in order which violates that provision. So either the president was elected to a two year term, or his election was null and void. If the former, you could try to remove him from office right away for messing up the election.

I guess it depends whether you think that language next to his name was binding (like a promise) or completely meaningless (like a campaign promise).

I think you're going to have to sort it out yourselves, because RONR deals primarily with how to handle matters in accordance with the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...