Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Bylaw interpretation


Guest Celestine Lee

Recommended Posts

Guest Celestine Lee

Our Bylaws provide:

 

The committee shall be composed of officers, standing committee chairmen and the former president.

 

The recently re-elected president insist he is not only the president but the former president.

 

Is the "former president" the president or does the former president retain his position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the "former president" the president or does the former president retain his position?

RONR does not address the issue of "former president" or the more commonly used "immediate past president".

 

However, going out on a bit of a limb, I believe most of us on this board would say that the current president is not the immediate past president.  I  would say he is not the "former president", either.

 

That is a matter of interpreting your bylaws which only your own organization can do.  We do not interpret organizations' bylaws on here.  It is beyond the scope of this forum.  Our opinions don't count.  It is the opinion of your members that counts.

 

Edited to add:  You might ask your president who he considers to be the "former President" of the U.S.:  Barack Obama or George W. Bush?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The president is a current officer, and so, according to your bylaws, he is a member of this committee.

Does anyone actually disagree with that?  I think the issue is whether the current president is also the former president and therefore the guy who was president before this one isn't on the committee because the former one is no longer the former president.  I'm not sure what this rationale would make him.  Perhaps it makes him "a guy who was president once upon a time".  :o

 

Nice catch.

 

Let's just hope the current president doesn't think his predecessor isn't a member of the committee.

I think that's exactly what he thinks.

 

Perhaps guest Celestine can clear that up for us.  The last line of her post isn't all that clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Celestine. Yes the newly re-elected president is insisting that because he is the former president and the president, the former president is no longer entitled to be on the committee. This gives him two votes on the committee as an aside. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the newly re-elected president is insisting that because he is the former president and the president, the former president is no longer entitled to be on the committee. This gives him two votes on the committee as an aside. Thanks.

Nonsense.  He is dead wrong on both counts.  He is the current president, not the former president.  And, even if he was somehow also considered to be the former president, he would still have only one vote.  A board member holding two positions, such as Secretary and Treasurer, still gets only one vote.  It's the "one man = one vote" principle.

 

If your president needs more convincing, show him this provision on page 407 of RONR re "one person, one vote":

 

"ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE. It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each person who is a member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one—and only one—vote on a question. This is true even if a person is elected or appointed to more than one position, each of which would entitle the holder to a vote. For example, in a convention, a person selected as delegate by more than one constituent body may cast only one vote. An individual member's right to vote may not be transferred to another person (for example, by the use of proxies)."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our Bylaws provide:

 

The committee shall be composed of officers, standing committee chairmen and the former president.

 

The recently re-elected president insist he is not only the president but the former president.

 

Is the "former president" the president or does the former president retain his position?

 

Clearly, one is not the "former" anything until one has first stopped being that thing. 

 

However, even if he did hold two offices (which is entirely possible under any number of different circumstances), he would never get two votes.

 

When counting votes, one counts heads, not hats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...