Vacated position

[Joy1657]

Does the president automatically become the president for the unexpired term of the president who resigned? Is there any way around this?

[Richard Brown]

If you are referring to the Vice President,  yes.  He (or she) automatically becomes president the instant the president dies, resigns or ceases to be president for whatever reason. 

 

As to how to "get around" that, if the vice president doesn't want to be president, then he can resign, too, and you replace both officers.   If the organization doesn't want the vice president to become president, you can change your bylaws to provide that the vice president does NOT become president in the event of a vacancy in the office of the president.

 

But, why would you want to do that?  Isn't the very point, or at least one of the main points, of having a vice president to have someone who takes over seamlessly in the event of a vacancy in the office of the president?

 

Note:  If you have a president-elect, he does not automatically become president in the event of a vacancy in the office of president unless your bylaws so provide... but most bylaws I have seen do provide for that.  I'm not sure whether you were referring to your vice president or your president-elect.

[Joy1657]

Sorry I meant vice president. In our case he is not qualified. Thank you for you response.

[Richard Brown]

Sorry I meant vice president. In our case he is not qualified. Thank you for you response.

 

When you say "he is not qualified", do you mean that he does not meet the qualifications to be president set out in the bylaws?  Or that you don't think he's up to the job?  If the former, someone raises a point of order that he does not meet the qualifications set out in the bylaws.  The chair rules on whether the point of order is well taken.  His ruling is subject to appeal to the assembly.  It takes a majority vote to overrule the decision of the chair.   If he is declared to be ineligible to be president, he is automatically removed.  

 

An alternative  procedure, especially if  the membership believes he is not properly doing his job, would be to remove him from office pursuant to the disciplinary procedures in chapter XX of RONR.  That can be a complicated process and the exact procedure to be followed depends on various factors, primarily the exact wording of your bylaws on the terms of office.  Depending on the precise wording in the bylaws, it may be possible to remove him without cause.

 

See Frequently Asked Question No 20 for more information on removing someone from office.  http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#20

[Joy1657]

Thank you

[Richard Brown]

Is this by any chance the same organization described by Guest Steven here?  http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/23331-vice-president-declines-presidency/

[Joy1657]

No

[Josh Martin]

Sorry I meant vice president. In our case he is not qualified. Thank you for you response.

I concur with Mr. Brown, and I would add that if the issue is indeed one of eligibility, it would seem prudent to amend the bylaws so that the eligibility requirements for President and Vice President are the same, so that it is not possible to elect a Vice President who is ineligible to become President, and therefore this situation will not arise again.

[Gary Novosielski]

Sorry I meant vice president. In our case he is not qualified. Thank you for you response.

If he's truly ineligible according to the requirements in the bylaws, he should never have been elected VP.  Come to think of it, if he was merely unqualified, he should never have been elected VP.

 

Since the VP is always a heartbeat away from the presidency, the eligibility requirements and qualifications for both offices should be the same in the bylaws, but even if they are not, members would be ill advised to vote for anyone for VP who could not take over the job of president.

 

Still, unless your bylaws provide for some other procedure when the president, specifically, leaves office, your VP is now your president, whether he's qualified or not.  Good luck with that.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

[...] your VP is now your president, whether he's qualified or not.

I've got to disagree on this stretch.

 

E.g., if the qualification for president were include a criterion which the VP just does not have, (like, "serving for N years in capacity X"), then the VP remains VP, and there is no automatic succession.

No parliamentary rule, like 'autmatic succession', will supersede a definition, like a "qualification for office" embedded in one's bylaws.

[Josh Martin]

I've got to disagree on this stretch.

 

E.g., if the qualification for president were include a criterion which the VP just does not have, (like, "serving for N years in capacity X"), then the VP remains VP, and there is no automatic succession.

No parliamentary rule, like 'autmatic succession', will supersede a definition, like a "qualification for office" embedded in one's bylaws.

 

Quite so, but I think Mr. Novosielski is drawing a distinction between a member who is not "qualified" (or eligible) as a result of a provision in the bylaws and a member who is not "qualified" based on the opinions of some of the members.

[Gary Novosielski]

I've got to disagree on this stretch.

 

E.g., if the qualification for president were include a criterion which the VP just does not have, (like, "serving for N years in capacity X"), then the VP remains VP, and there is no automatic succession.

No parliamentary rule, like 'autmatic succession', will supersede a definition, like a "qualification for office" embedded in one's bylaws.

 

Quite so, but I think Mr. Novosielski is drawing a distinction between a member who is not "qualified" (or eligible) as a result of a provision in the bylaws and a member who is not "qualified" based on the opinions of some of the members.

 

Quite so.  I was speaking of qualified in the opinions of some (or even all) members.   The time to consider that is when deciding whether to vote for an unqualifeid VP candidate.  <cough>Palin</cough> 

 

I think it could be called "unreasonable" to establish different eligibility requirements for president and VP in the bylaws, for this very reason.  

 

I would even go so far as to suggest that if an organization did establish a lesser standard of eligibility for VP, presumably being aware of the automatic succession rule, yet did not specify a method of succession for the president in particular, that they intended that the normal succession should occur, notwithstanding the fact that the ascending VP could not have been elected to the presidency directly.  

 

Shaky ground, perhaps, but depending on the exact language, a defensible interpretation, I think:  When two interpretations are possible, choose the reasonable over the unreasonable.

[Timothy]

If the VP isn't qualified to be president, but the duty of the VP is to replace the president if the president leaves office before the end of his term, how can we say that the VP is qualified to be VP?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

If the VP isn't qualified to be president, but the duty of the VP is to replace the president if the president leaves office before the end of his term, how can we say that the VP is qualified to be VP?

Because:

There is a vast difference between:

(a.) duties which are daily and necessary.

(b.) duties which occur only in the case of death or emergency.

 

"Automatic succession" is not part of the job description of VP.

No one "does" "automatic succession" weekly or monthly.

It isn't meant to occur with regularitity.

 

Also:

There are no qualifications for office in Robert's Rules of Order.

Anyone, even the ignorant, even the disgraced member, even a convicted felon, can be elected to serve in office.

RONR does not impose the "automatic succession" rule as a "qualification for office".

[Edgar Guest]

"Automatic succession" is not part of the job description of VP.

 

It's not?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

It's not?

Nope.

 

When the P is absent, then the VP presides.

That is the very purpose of a VP.

 

When the P is dead, then that is an emergency situation, a once-per-generation situation.

 

All you need is a VP who can DO THE DUTIES of the office of P, without HOLDING THE OFFICE of P.

 

You don't need to "ascend to the highest office" to (a.) open a meeting; (b.) make rulings; (c.) conduct votes.

All you need is a VP.

 

Same with the office of SECRETARY.

When the secretary dies, do you need to HOLD THE OFFICE of "secretary" to (a.) take down business; (b.) do typing?

No.

All you need is a secretary pro-tem.

 

Same with treasurer.

[Edgar Guest]

When the P is dead, then that is an emergency situation, a once-per-generation situation.

 

If you say so.

[Josh Martin]

 I think it could be called "unreasonable" to establish different eligibility requirements for president and VP in the bylaws, for this very reason.  

 

I would even go so far as to suggest that if an organization did establish a lesser standard of eligibility for VP, presumably being aware of the automatic succession rule, yet did not specify a method of succession for the president in particular, that they intended that the normal succession should occur, notwithstanding the fact that the ascending VP could not have been elected to the presidency directly.  

 

Shaky ground, perhaps, but depending on the exact language, a defensible interpretation, I think:  When two interpretations are possible, choose the reasonable over the unreasonable.

 

Yes, this may be a reasonable interpretation. I think it may also be a reasonable interpretation that the Vice President would not automatically become President in the event of a vacancy if he is ineligible for that office. As you say, it depends on the exact language.

 

If the VP isn't qualified to be president, but the duty of the VP is to replace the president if the president leaves office before the end of his term, how can we say that the VP is qualified to be VP?

 

I don't know, ask the organization which adopts such silly rules.