VP want to Vote President Out

[jackson_2]

Help!

We have a family reunion that has been around for many many years now.  Those who started it have most gone on, but we still try to carry it on.

We have 4 state chapters with Louisiana being the originator.  We rotate every 2 years and 2016 is the year for Houston, TX.

 

That said, we have had the same President, Vice President, and Treasurer in office since the start of the Houston Chapter back in the 80's and now there is a new generation that wants to see them removed due to the fact that we need to bring new light to the event.  One of the family members has been nominated as Chairman, but he is now trying to vote the President out and feels the family should have a vote on all positions to give others an opportunity.

 

He tried at one of the meetings to bring it to the floor, but it was just one big mess!  People were offended that they were asking for a new vote, and it was just very ugly.  What is happening is now the family is dividing and I feel in the end no one will participate since it's getting so ugly.

 

So we do have bylaws and the issue is that they don't give a term for any positions.

 

My advice was to let all those officers stay until after this reunion and then do a new vote, but the family members on the side of the Chairman aren't having it and we are getting no where.

 

I'd like to step in someone how and get it done.  Right now I am a mutual party.  I helped make the last one in Houston a success and they have asked me to step in again, but I think I'll need to do more this time.  How can I tactfully, obeying the RR, step in?

[bessdr]

Do your bylaws specify that you follow Roberts?

[Edgar Guest]

See FAQ #20.

[jackson_2]

I want to say they don't, but they have just always tried to follow them for "order"

[Hieu H. Huynh]

... So we do have bylaws and the issue is that they don't give a term for any positions...

 

If there are no terms, I'm not sure if the details in FAQ #20 apply, since FAQ #20 is based on the wording for the terms of officers. Perhaps the organization could amend its bylaws to include terms of offices. Also if there are no terms, how can there be elections?

[Bruce Lages]

I suspect that if there are no terms of office specified in the bylaws, the assembly could adopt a motion to set another election at any time. However, I'm not sure if such a  motion would require a 2/3 vote or just a majority vote.

[jackson_2]

If there are no terms, I'm not sure if the details in FAQ #20 apply, since FAQ #20 is based on the wording for the terms of officers. Perhaps the organization could amend its bylaws to include terms of offices. Also if there are no terms, how can there be elections?

 

That makes lots of sense.  I'll take a look at the bylaws tonight, because during the meeting where all the arguing went on the President told everyone that the Chairman couldn't decide that he had the final say. 

Very interesting. Thank you for all this help.

[jackson_2]

I suspect that if there are no terms of office specified in the bylaws, the assembly could adopt a motion to set another election at any time. However, I'm not sure if such a  motion would require a 2/3 vote or just a majority vote.

 

I like that idea, but when the chairman tried doing it before there was an uproar.  I guess I can bring up the fact that the bylaws don't speak to their actions and that if we are following the rules, here is what applies...

 

thanks so much for your help n understanding all this.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

I suspect that if there are no terms of office specified in the bylaws, the assembly could adopt a motion to set another election at any time. However, I'm not sure if such a  motion would require a 2/3 vote or just a majority vote.

 

Wouldn't having another election be like the adoption of a main motion conflicting with one still in force? In the absence of terms of officers, I think that removing the current officers would require either disciplinary proceedings or amending the bylaws to provide for terms of officers.

[Richard Brown]

Do your bylaws call for regular elections, such as annually or every two years?  If so, that leads to the logical conclusion that the terms of office are the same.   What do your bylaws say about elections?   How were the present officers chosen, some of whom you say have been in office since the 1980's?

[Edgar Guest]

I'll take a look at the bylaws tonight . . . 

 

That's a good idea.

[Richard Brown]

Wouldn't having another election be like the adoption of a main motion conflicting with one still in force? In the absence of terms of officers, I think that removing the current officers would require either disciplinary proceedings or amending the bylaws to provide for terms of officers.

Hieu, I disagree.  If (and that's a big if) there really are no terms of office, then I believe the officers essentially serve at will, meaning that they serve simply until  their successors are elected.

 

I do agree, though, that the bylaws should be amended to provide for terms of office, preferably with the "or until their successors are elected" terminology. 

[Bruce Lages]

Wouldn't having another election be like the adoption of a main motion conflicting with one still in force? In the absence of terms of officers, I think that removing the current officers would require either disciplinary proceedings or amending the bylaws to provide for terms of officers.

 

That's why I included the possibility of a 2/3 vote. It may be that the appropriate motion - i.e. the motion to set another election - would be in the line of amending something previously adopted, and if made without previous notice would require a 2/3/ vote.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

 

So we do have bylaws

and the issue is that

they don't give a term for any positions.

 

That's good.

Follow RONR page 653.

 

● If the bylaws provide that officers shall serve “for _____ years or until their successors are elected,”

the officer in question can be removed from office by adoption of a motion to do so.  

 

That is what you've got.

i.e., "... until their successors are elected."

Remove your officer from office, by making a motion saying so.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

I can see why RONR has the following line on p. 573 - "The length of the terms of office should be prescribed" (ll. 28-29). I also saw this line on p. 574 - "a reasonable rotation in office is desirable in almost all organizations" (ll. 35-36). So this organization is unlike almost all organizations...

[Edgar Guest]

So this organization is unlike almost all organizations...

 

Well, it's a "family reunion" so, almost by definition. it's unlike most organizations. But it might very well be like most "family reunions" (i.e. Uncle Henry is the president until Uncle Henry is no more).

[Gary Novosielski]

If the organization holds an Annual Meeting, and RONR defines an annual meeting as one where (among other things) election of officers takes place, Does that suggest to anyone a default term of office of one year or until a successor is elected?

[Guest Edgar]

If the organization holds an Annual Meeting, and RONR defines an annual meeting as one where (among other things) election of officers takes place, Does that suggest to anyone a default term of office of one year or until a successor is elected?

 

I think that's more of a description of an annual meeting than a definition. An organization could have only two-year terms and still hold annual meetings even though there'd be no elections at half of them.

 

So, no, I wouldn't assume a default term of one year. It would be different if the bylaws themselves indicated that elections "shall" be held at the annual meeting.

[Richard Brown]

I think that if the bylaws of THIS ORGANIZATION call for an "annual meeting" every year and that elections of officers shall be conducted at the annual meeting, then it does indicate that the terms of office are for one year.....or, more precisely, until the next annual meeting.   I do not see where the "or until their successors are elected" clause would be applicable.  I see it as a definite, but perhaps slightly variable, term, with the variation due solely to the fact that the annual meetings are probably not EXACTLY one year apart.  As I interpret such a provision, the terms of office would be "from one annual meeting until the next".

[Josh Martin]

If the organization holds an Annual Meeting, and RONR defines an annual meeting as one where (among other things) election of officers takes place, Does that suggest to anyone a default term of office of one year or until a successor is elected?

I believe RONR says that officers are frequently elected at an annual meeting (or something to that effect). So the fact that the organization has an annual meeting, in and of itself, does not seem sufficiently persuasive to conclude that the term of office is "one year or until a successor is elected."

Now, if the bylaws themselves say that elections take place at the annual meeting, that would be a great deal more persuasive.

I see it as a definite, but perhaps slightly variable, term, with the variation due solely to the fact that the annual meetings are probably not EXACTLY one year apart.  As I interpret such a provision, the terms of office would be "from one annual meeting until the next".

I'll have to take a look at the section on the content and composition of bylaws when I get a chance to be sure, but I believe that RONR provides that a term of "one year" means that anyway. As you note, annual meetings are probably not exactly one year apart.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

If the organization holds an Annual Meeting, and RONR defines an annual meeting as one where (among other things) election of officers takes place,

Does that suggest to anyone a default term of office of one year or until a successor is elected?

Not to me.

 

A "year" may not correspond with the date of the AGM.

E.g., an AGM in July in 2014 and August in 2015 implies that the organization would be without officers for one month.

So it isn't literally "one year".

It is definitely not a fixed term of office.

 

It's when elections are truly held -- i.e., when a successor is elected.

[Gary Novosielski]

Not to me.

 

A "year" may not correspond with the date of the AGM.

E.g., an AGM in July in 2014 and August in 2015 implies that the organization would be without officers for one month.

So it isn't literally "one year".

It is definitely not a fixed term of office.

 

It's when elections are truly held -- i.e., when a successor is elected.

 

Well, I was assuming the RONR convention that a one-year term is not exactly a year unless the annual meeting should happen to fall on exactly the same date.