Guest Richard Posted October 18, 2015 at 01:10 AM Report Posted October 18, 2015 at 01:10 AM Hello! I have a question concerning about holding office. An organization has the following in the membership section of the constitution: Section 3. The right to vote or hold office is reserved to active members. The treasurer, which is an appointed position, is stepping down. Can a retired member serve in this appointed position with the wording above?I have my opinion, but I wish to seek other input with more knowledge. Thank you.
Guest Curious Posted October 18, 2015 at 01:36 AM Report Posted October 18, 2015 at 01:36 AM Does your constitution (or bylaws) define an "active member"? If it doesn't, then it's entirely up to your organization to decide what this means. My two cents is that a retired member is not an active member, by the ordinary meaning of "retired."
Guest richard Posted October 18, 2015 at 02:04 AM Report Posted October 18, 2015 at 02:04 AM The Membership section clearly defines what positions are officers. The treasurer's position is not listed anywhere as an "office".
Gödel Fan Posted October 18, 2015 at 02:11 AM Report Posted October 18, 2015 at 02:11 AM Ah, so you're asking about "office" not about "active." Hmm, well, this gets into bylaw interpretation, but it is a principle of bylaw interpretation that a listing implies the exclusion of anything not on the list, and in fact uses, as an example, a listing of officers implying that no other officers can exist. However, it's not clear to me that the result is "the treasurer isn't an officer" rather than "there isn't a treasurer position" unless, of course, the treasurer is described somewhere. Is the treasurer described somewhere in the bylaws?
Guest Curious Posted October 18, 2015 at 02:42 AM Report Posted October 18, 2015 at 02:42 AM The Membership section clearly defines what positions are officers. The treasurer's position is not listed anywhere as an "office". I think you've answered your own question. If only active members can hold office, but Treasurer isn't an office, then you can appoint anyone at all. Even Rick Perry.
Guest richard Posted October 18, 2015 at 02:46 AM Report Posted October 18, 2015 at 02:46 AM Ah, so you're asking about "office" not about "active." Hmm, well, this gets into bylaw interpretation, but it is a principle of bylaw interpretation that a listing implies the exclusion of anything not on the list, and in fact uses, as an example, a listing of officers implying that no other officers can exist. However, it's not clear to me that the result is "the treasurer isn't an officer" rather than "there isn't a treasurer position" unless, of course, the treasurer is described somewhere. Is the treasurer described somewhere in the bylaws?No, the treasurer is not described anywhere in the constitution and bylaws.
Curiosulus Posted October 18, 2015 at 02:59 AM Report Posted October 18, 2015 at 02:59 AM Now that we've played 20 Questions, what is the opinion that you teased in the OP?
Richard Brown Posted October 18, 2015 at 05:56 AM Report Posted October 18, 2015 at 05:56 AM I'm of the opinion that if the Treasurer is not listed as an office or "officer" in the bylaws, then the retired member may serve in that capacity. It is ultimately of your organization interpreting its own bylaws, though, so my opinion isn't the one that counts. The opinion of your membership is what ultimately counts. Perhaps our discussion will help you and the other members to reach a decision.
g40 Posted October 18, 2015 at 04:15 PM Report Posted October 18, 2015 at 04:15 PM If the office of "Treasurer" is not listed in the Bylaws, as you state, then what officer or official listed in your Bylaws would be charged with maintaining, etc. the finances and financial reports, etc. of the organization? Is it possible that the "Treasurer" (as you operate) may just have a different "title"? Perhaps something like "Financial officer", or something like that. Seems, to me at least, that the very critical role of "Treasurer" (whatever the title used) would not be listed in the Bylaws. It is not uncommon that the same duties, definitions of offices, etc. in different places/organizations and at different times may be identical - but only have different "titles". In these cases, to avoid confusion (or worse), it is a good idea to have clear definitions of title(s) and duties.
Guest richard Posted October 18, 2015 at 05:00 PM Report Posted October 18, 2015 at 05:00 PM Now that we've played 20 Questions, what is the opinion that you teased in the OP?The position is appointed and not elected so my opinion is that a retired member could serve in an appointed position. I also agree that the organization should review what is provided and consider providing better definitions of titles and duties.Thanks
Richard Brown Posted October 18, 2015 at 06:08 PM Report Posted October 18, 2015 at 06:08 PM The position is appointed and not elected so my opinion is that a retired member could serve in an appointed position. I also agree that the organization should review what is provided and consider providing better definitions of titles and duties.ThanksI think the precise language in the bylaws about the "treasurer", "financial officer", or whatever he is called is critical. The fact that it is an appointed rather than elected position may or may not be relevant. Several provisions of the bylaws may need to be read together in order to resolve that issue. It is ultimately a question of bylaws interpretation.
Gary Novosielski Posted October 18, 2015 at 07:25 PM Report Posted October 18, 2015 at 07:25 PM I'm also curious about the wording giving members the "right" to hold office. I've seen it in other bylaws, and it always bothered me, since there is clearly no such right, If there were, any member could challenge the results of a lost election, claiming that his right to hold office had been violated.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.