amending the position of Past President

[Guest Linda]

I am president of a golf league which people rejoin each year.  The Past President position is a voting member on the E Board.  This year this position will be vacant because the past president will not be a league member.  This situation is not addressed currently in our bylaws.  Does there need to be 1) a bylaw change to delete the Past President position from the board 2) an ammendment addressing how to handle in the years there may not be a Past President.

[jstackpo]

The easy one first...  (I'll look at the tough one in another posting.)

 

Yes, you need a bylaw amendment to position of past president - a good thing to do, IMO.  Make it a permanent elimination.  Here's why:

 

IPP is a Bad Idea:

And here's some reasons why the position is a bad idea:

In my personal view, setting up an "official" Immediate Past President (IPP) position is not a particularly good idea.  The most telling argument is the real possibility of a close and bitter race for the presidency, with the current president running (for a second term) against an "outsider".  And the outsider - the "reform candidate", perhaps - wins but is still stuck with the thorn of the IPP on the Board in a position to snipe at the new president.  And perhaps attempt to undermine the new president's plans.  Not to mention vote against them.

If the erstwhile president is a "good guy" the new president can (usually, depending on the bylaws) appoint him to a pre-existing committee - or even have him chair one, which might put him on the Board - as the new president sees fit.  That way the IPP's experience and value can be put to good use, when needed, without the danger of setting up an adversarial situation which would require a bylaw amendment to get out of.

Here's some more reasons

1) The President resigns and wants nothing to do with the organization.
 
2) The President simply doesn't run for election again because he's had enough, and never shows up at a board meeting.
 
3) The President is booted out of office for being incompetent, or for something more nefarious.
 
4) The President dies.
 
5) The President resigns and moves (wants to help but isn't around).

6) Even worse is the bylaw assignment of the IPP to chair a committee - such as nominating.  Then he dies/quits/leaves town, &c.  You are then stuck with an unfillable (by definition) vacancy.

Note that except for item 4, the IPP may well be part of the quorum requirement for meetings, even though he never shows up.
 

[jstackpo]

Now the tougher one (tougher because it depends on your bylaws):

 

It there an explicit bylaws requirement (not just an "understanding") that one must be a league member to serve on the Board?

 

If not, the your past president is legitimately on the board, simply by virtue of the position (as defined in the bylaws) he now holds.

 

And it may be that he is on the board - an interpretation of "ex officio" says so - league member or not.

[Timothy]

I am president of a golf league which people rejoin each year.  The Past President position is a voting member on the E Board.  This year this position will be vacant because the past president will not be a league member.  This situation is not addressed currently in our bylaws.  Does there need to be 1) a bylaw change to delete the Past President position from the board 2) an ammendment addressing how to handle in the years there may not be a Past President.

 

I agree with the others who say that making a past president an ex officio member of the board is a bad idea. That being said, RONR does not prohibit non-members from being ex officio members of the board. In that situation, "he has all the priviledges of board membership, including the right to make motions and to vote, but none of the obligations." (p. 483, ll. 30-33)

 

So, unless the bylaws specify that a past president who is not a league member is different than one who is, the past president would still be an ex officio member, whether he decided to show up for the meetings or not. But if he did, he could vote.

 

If it were me looking to make a change, I'd want to remove the past president position from the bylaws. But I know of plenty of people who think it is a good idea and continue to add these things to bylaws.

[jstackpo]

 But I know of plenty of people who think it [ a past president on the board] is a good idea and continue to add these things to bylaws.

 

And live to regret it...

 

 

 

[Guest linda]

The easy one first...  (I'll look at the tough one in another posting.)

 

Yes, you need a bylaw amendment to position of past president - a good thing to do, IMO.  Make it a permanent elimination.  Here's why:

 

IPP is a Bad Idea:

And here's some reasons why the position is a bad idea:

In my personal view, setting up an "official" Immediate Past President (IPP) position is not a particularly good idea.  The most telling argument is the real possibility of a close and bitter race for the presidency, with the current president running (for a second term) against an "outsider".  And the outsider - the "reform candidate", perhaps - wins but is still stuck with the thorn of the IPP on the Board in a position to snipe at the new president.  And perhaps attempt to undermine the new president's plans.  Not to mention vote against them.

If the erstwhile president is a "good guy" the new president can (usually, depending on the bylaws) appoint him to a pre-existing committee - or even have him chair one, which might put him on the Board - as the new president sees fit.  That way the IPP's experience and value can be put to good use, when needed, without the danger of setting up an adversarial situation which would require a bylaw amendment to get out of.

Here's some more reasons

1) The President resigns and wants nothing to do with the organization.

 

2) The President simply doesn't run for election again because he's had enough, and never shows up at a board meeting.

 

3) The President is booted out of office for being incompetent, or for something more nefarious.

 

4) The President dies.

 

5) The President resigns and moves (wants to help but isn't around).

6) Even worse is the bylaw assignment of the IPP to chair a committee - such as nominating.  Then he dies/quits/leaves town, &c.  You are then stuck with an unfillable (by definition) vacancy.

Note that except for item 4, the IPP may well be part of the quorum requirement for meetings, even though he never shows up.

 

Everything you have said i have thought about.  In our current situation, we had several issues with PP when she was president.  Now after our first board meeting her comment is "not sure if I will even join league."  I have enough time to address removing the position from our board if I start everything now.  In our situation, this pp would definitely initiate problems over this.  I think now is a good time to correct the bylaw.  Our board members have to be paid member of club.

[jstackpo]

Good luck.  I participated in such a "removal" (via bylaw amendment) and it generated some bad feelings, but only on the part of the removee.  Everybody else was relieved.

[Rev Ed]

Good luck.  I participated in such a "removal" (via bylaw amendment) and it generated some bad feelings, but only on the part of the removee.  Everybody else was relieved.

 

Well, as the Past President appears not to have anything to do with the organization anyway, I guess there will not be much in the way of bad feelings.

 

In my experience, if you have a Past President who is a really good member then the person can be elected to another position.

[Bruce Lages]

Removing the position from being an ex officio board member is probably a good idea for all the reasons stated above. But if you aren't successful in that, also be aware that there is a difference between being a past president and being the immediate past president. Presumably you could have more than one past president, while only one person can be the immediate past president at any given time. If your bylaws really do say 'past president', then there could be several people qualified to fill the position

[Rev Ed]

Removing the position from being an ex officio board member is probably a good idea for all the reasons stated above. But if you aren't successful in that, also be aware that there is a difference between being a past president and being the immediate past president. Presumably you could have more than one past president, while only one person can be the immediate past president at any given time. If your bylaws really do say 'past president', then there could be several people qualified to fill the position

 

In that case, I assume that pages 588-591 of RONR come into force (the basic principles of interpretation), as the organization would have to determine - for itself - what it intended when it stated 'Past President' instead of 'Immediate Past President.'  Although, I concur it opens the door to another person holding the position.

[g40]

While certainly not a "parliamentary" analogy - I think giving any past President an official role in an organization is much like giving your ex-husband or ex-wife an "official" role in your household or family. It seems to me that any benefits or possible positive input or contributions a past president would provide to an organization could be accomplished by explicit invitation to relevant meetings or appointment to committees. Much like the ex-husband or ex-wife analogy, If there are occasions when it might be beneficial for the ex to attend or participate in family matters, an invitation can always be extended. I have a sister-in-law, for example, who is on such good terms with her first husband that he attends and participates in many family events.

[Timothy]

While certainly not a "parliamentary" analogy - I think giving any past President an official role in an organization is much like giving your ex-husband or ex-wife an "official" role in your household or family. It seems to me that any benefits or possible positive input or contributions a past president would provide to an organization could be accomplished by explicit invitation to relevant meetings or appointment to committees. Much like the ex-husband or ex-wife analogy, If there are occasions when it might be beneficial for the ex to attend or participate in family matters, an invitation can always be extended. I have a sister-in-law, for example, who is on such good terms with her first husband that he attends and participates in many family events.

 

That analogy falls apart on so many levels. For one thing an ex-spouse is likely to have some involvement whether they are granted a role or not. And past presidents are more likely to have parted on good terms than ex-spouses. If ex-spouses departed on as good of terms as presidents usually do, one would question why they were leaving at all.