Past President assume another executive committee office?

[Guest ASH]

The person who is the current president of our organization wants to run for treasurer next year. This is causing 2 problems for our nominating committee I wonder if I could get some input on.

 

1. We have a nominating committee and the committee has a nominee already. We were planning to present a single slate of officers. Now the treasurer position will require a contested election. I suggested to the president that this was not a great idea--I think it has the potential to be very divisive and uncomfortable and kind of unnecessary. We have never had a contested election before--our organization is decent sized, but most people do not want to hold office. Usually when two people express an interest in an office, one person drops out and does something else.  Am I right to suggest this?

 

2. I think it would be extremely awkward if she were treasurer, though she does not think so. The current president elect (so this is an planned succession to president) is currently on the board with this president and it feels unfair to her to have the immediate past president take on another elected, voting position.  Again, is it proper of me to suggest this?

 

I'll be up front and say this is not my favorite person, but I am trying to keep things equitable and do what I would do if she was someone else. She had already asked if she could run against the President elect and the decision on that was probably not, since the intent is for automatic succession.  There is also  an amendment being considered to the by laws that would allow the past president to be a voting member of the executive committee.  To me, this just looks like she wants to stay on the executive board at all costs.  On the other hand, the nominating committee does not want to look political either--as though we are trying to keep her out.

[jstackpo]

You are free to suggest away to your heart's content, but there is no rule in RONR that prohibits a past-anything officer from running for some other office.

 

On the matter of introducing a "Immediate Past President" (IPP) position on your board:  DON'T DO IT:

 

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.
 

[Chris Harrison]

1) I don't think there is anything wrong with giving someone your opinion on how you think their running for office would affect the organization (though they may not have been asking for or want your opinion and giving it might make her more likely to run).

2) Unless your bylaws say otherwise she would only hold one vote on the Board no matter how many offices she holds (RONR p. 407).

 

I'll be up front and say this is not my favorite person,

A little Psych 101 here but I think if someone knows that unsolicited and unwanted advice is being given by someone that doesn't like her she is probably more likely to go in the opposite direction of the advice.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think it's about time you had a contested election. You might find it is a healthy thing for an organization.

[Guest Guest]

Thanks so much for this input. The psych 101 advice was apt--I really should have kept that opinion to myself. But the cat is out of the bag and I did phrase it as "this is what I would say to anyone, its not about you" and that is definately true. The reality, I think, is that I wouldn't have to share that opinion with most people, because most people in the organization wouldn't want to do that. Some past presidents been chairs of committees after being president, but no one has ever been on the executive board again (at least not that I can remember) and no one have never held another executive office immediately after being president. This is a PTO (Parent Teacher Organization--not a PTA, so not part of the national organizaton) and often when the President is done, they are officially finished with the organization because they no longer have a student in the school.

Also, while we have numerous worker bees, we rarely have people who want to be President. In fact, this is the first year in 3 years that we've even had a President elect to take over the presidency. We haven't had contested elections because we can rarely find more than one more to fill a role. And again, if we ever do, its the people themselves who don't want a contested election, not the organization. I don't really think a contested election would do anything for us.

I know there is nothing in Roberts or our by laws from having this person run for any office, I guess I was wondering if in people had experience with that or if anyone thought it was a good or bad idea.

This is a great forum! Thanks!

[Rev Ed]

1. We have a nominating committee and the committee has a nominee already. We were planning to present a single slate of officers. Now the treasurer position will require a contested election. I suggested to the president that this was not a great idea--I think it has the potential to be very divisive and uncomfortable and kind of unnecessary. We have never had a contested election before--our organization is decent sized, but most people do not want to hold office. Usually when two people express an interest in an office, one person drops out and does something else.  Am I right to suggest this?

 

You are free to express your feelings.  However, there is nothing wrong with having an election.  It's called democracy.  If the current President chooses to run for Treasurer, this is totally okay. 

 

2. I think it would be extremely awkward if she were treasurer, though she does not think so. The current president elect (so this is an planned succession to president) is currently on the board with this president and it feels unfair to her to have the immediate past president take on another elected, voting position.  Again, is it proper of me to suggest this?

 

It's not really proper to suggest this. You don't know how this is going to work out, and anyway it is up to the membership, not you or the President-Elect, to decide who is the Treasurer and whether or not the outgoing President should hold another office or not.  That is the whole point of an election.

[Guest ash]

Thanks to everyone for their responses.  I have to say I am surprised, but I found Rev Ed's advice especially helpful.  I guess deep down I knew that there was really no reason to suggest these things, that its hard to separate out personalities, and that all suggestions can have the appearance of conflict and coersion.  It is important to keep the democratic process alive and you do that by elections. 

 

 

[g40]

Unless there are provisions in your bylaws or other overriding rules, I doubt your nominating committee has the power or authority to prevent a qualified candidate from running for an office. If you (or any other member) do not believe this person is the better candidate, you are free to vote for the one who you believe is the better candidate. You are also free to make your opinion(s) known to other voting members.