Immediate Past President duty to the Board

[Guest Karen]

Our bylaws do not speak to how our organization should member an Immediate Past President to the Executive Board. We would like the person to continue on the Board, for history and to help with a smooth transition of the new Board.  Is there Parliamentary rule that allows the person to serve as an ex-officio member or some other termed position on the Executive Board? 

 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

The board could allow this person to attend its meetings.

[Guest]

So is there no RONR language to have the person be an actual Board member?  Does the Immediate Past President not have any ex-officia title?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

No.

[Josh Martin]

52 minutes ago, Guest Karen said:

Our bylaws do not speak to how our organization should member an Immediate Past President to the Executive Board. We would like the person to continue on the Board, for history and to help with a smooth transition of the new Board.  Is there Parliamentary rule that allows the person to serve as an ex-officio member or some other termed position on the Executive Board? 

No.

39 minutes ago, Guest said:

So is there no RONR language to have the person be an actual Board member?

No.

39 minutes ago, Guest said:

Does the Immediate Past President not have any ex-officia title?

Not unless your bylaws so provide - and I wouldn't recommend it. I'm sure it sounds like a great idea now, but eventually, you might have an Immediate Past President who you don't want to keep on the board.

If you want a particular IPP to serve on the board, just elect him to the board like anyone else.

[jstackpo]

And here is a sermon, intended to stop you from making the Immediate Past President (IPP) an official member of the Board, via a bylaw amendment (which is the only proper way you could).

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.

 

Our suggestion is to amend your bylaws to eliminate the position.

[Guest Karen]

9 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

No.

No.

Not unless your bylaws so provide - and I wouldn't recommend it. I'm sure it sounds like a great idea now, but eventually, you might have an Immediate Past President who you don't want to keep on the board.

If you want a particular IPP to serve on the board, just elect him to the board like anyone else.

I see now why it is best not to have this in the bylaws.  However, Mr. Martin said "If you want a particular IPP to serve on the board, just elect him to the board like anyone else".  Does this mean to elect the person to a position that currently exist on the board?  Those were filled during the officer elections.  The IPP did not run for an office.  Now we are trying to keep the IPP around.  Other people attend our Board meeting, who are not appointed or elected.  They have specific duties to assist our mission.  They do not vote and are not a part of the quorum.  But they are influential, for better or worse.  We really want this IPP to have a voice on the board. If appointed to a chair, the IPP still may not have a voice.  The Executive board includes the elected and appointed officers, per our bylaws.  We do not have a name in our bylaws for the officers plus the chairs.  But we should.  I think it should have been named the Executive Board.  Then the proper name for the elected and appointed officers could be the Executive Committee.  Perhaps this would be a good bylaw amendment.   

[Kim Goldsworthy]

2 hours ago, Guest Karen said:

The IPP did not run for an office.  

There you go!

2 hours ago, Guest Karen said:

Other people attend our Board meeting, who are not appointed or elected.  [. . .] They do not vote and are not a part of the quorum.  But they are influential, for better or worse. 

There you go!

***

If you want your former president to hang around and give input, THEN JUST ASK.

You don't need to grant this former president a vote. You just want this former president's ideas and opinions, in a timely fashion.

You don't need to amend your bylaws to allow the former president to speak inside a meeting of your board.-- You can to that now.

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, Guest Karen said:

We do not have a name in our bylaws for the officers plus the chairs.  But we should.  I think it should have been named the Executive Board.  Then the proper name for the elected and appointed officers could be the Executive Committee.  Perhaps this would be a good bylaw amendment.   

That's up to your society.

[g40]

I was a member of a trade association Board for several years. The bylaws provided an automatic position on the Executive Committee for the Immediate Past president. At my initiation and urging, that automatic provision was removed from the Bylaws. In this process, I learned that over the years different past presidents interpreted this differently. Although there were no restrictions, sometimes a past president assumed being a continuing board member was a requirement, while others did not. So glad we got rid of it before it ever became a problem.

If an organization wishes continuity/assistance from a past president or past chairman, then they can always extend an invitation to him/her. The "automatic" position is where there can be big potential problems.

[Guest Karen]

The organization has grown.  Can the Executive Board, which is the elected and appointed officers, allow the Committee chairs to attend the Executive Board meetings and be given voting rights?  If a time comes where the Executive Board wants to meet alone, then they can do so.  If this is so, then the IPP can be appointed to a chair of a committee, and thereby have a voice at the meetings.  Is this a good or bad idea?

[DrEntropy]

22 minutes ago, Guest Karen said:

The organization has grown.  Can the Executive Board, which is the elected and appointed officers, allow the Committee chairs to attend the Executive Board meetings and be given voting rights?  If a time comes where the Executive Board wants to meet alone, then they can do so.  If this is so, then the IPP can be appointed to a chair of a committee, and thereby have a voice at the meetings.  Is this a good or bad idea?

The Executive board can allow anyone they wish to attend their meetings, and even speak on motions if they so desire (through a motion to suspend the rules for example).  However they cannot allow a non-member to vote, that violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law (RONR page 263).  If you want more members of the executive board (Committee chairs, in your case) amend the bylaws.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

34 minutes ago, Guest Karen said:

Is this a good or bad idea?

Bad idea.

***

Imagine. -- A future meeting.

Board is meeting (assume 10 members).

Guests and visitors are present (assume 100 such attendees).

Motion is made, seconded, discussed, and amended.

Vote is conducted.

Board members vote: 2 affirmative, 8 negative.

Guests/Visitors vote: 60 affirmative, 40 negative.

Sum the totals: 62 affirmative. 48 negative.

The minutes record that the board has approved the motion. (Despite the board voting 2-8.)

Q. Is THAT what you WANT?

Q. Do you think you get any quality of support out of your board where there is only two people out of ten who support the idea?

Q. If you WANT the guest/visitors to control the organization, then why not GET RID OR YOUR BOARD COMPLETELY and have the general membership truly control 100% of the organization?