Filling Officer positions due to resignations

[Guest Curious]

Question:  At a meeting called to vote on the removal of an officer (say president) and the election of a successor, can the following occur:

Can a successor be elected who already holds another officer position (say secretary)  if the by-laws do not preclude it?

If  the successor chooses to  resign from the first officer position  (secretary) to fill the office from which a person has just been removed (president), there would then be a vacancy in the secretary position.  Could that position be filled at the same meeting? Would there be a way to properly notice  such a meeting so that  is was clear that officer vacancies  would be created and filled during  the  meeting although one would not know exactly which offices would become vacant. 

Basically, the meeting would be for  the  removal of the  president and then the subsequent reorganization of the officer team.  Could  it be noticed that way?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

The vacancy could be filled if notice is given of it.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

3 hours ago, Guest Curious said:

At a meeting called to vote on the removal of an officer (say president),

and the election of a successor, can the following occur:

Q1) . Can a successor be elected who already holds another officer position (say secretary)  if the by-laws do not preclude it?

If  the successor chooses to  resign from the first officer position  (secretary) to fill the office from which a person has just been removed (president), there would then be a vacancy in the secretary position. 

Q2.) Could that position be filled at the same meeting?

Q3.) Basically, the meeting would be for  the  removal of the  president and then the subsequent reorganization of the officer team.  Could  it be noticed that way?

A1.) This is more complex that it seems.

Under Robert's Rules of Order, if you were to lose your president under any circumstance, then your vice-president would automatically become president. -- No election would be involved.

Now, if your bylaws do allow for jumping over the VP, so that you are free to elect anyone, then I think you can elect a replacement. -- You need previous notice to fill a vacancy. (See A2 for more.)

***

A2.) Even though you did not word your special meeting to "expressly" include the phrase, ". . and fill the resulting vacancy," I think it would be clear to any reader-member that whenever you oust a sitting officer, there would be a resulting vacancy.

So, by announcing a disciplinary action, you would be announcing indirectly "and there shall be a vacancy, afterward." -- But I await someone to post an argument against this indirect previous notice. I see no right being violated by this kind of notice.

Analogy: If you give previous notice to move a motion, "To hold a party for Christmas," no reader-member of such a notice would be surprise to learn that, upon adoption, (a.) money of the organization shall be spent; (b.) a venue other than the regular meeting place will have to be rented. -- By giving notice that X is to be done, the average reader-member should be able infer  from that notice that concomitant effects shall cascade down out of adoption of that motion.

No motion is adopted in a vacuum. No expulsion fails to deliver a vacancy.

Yet I await a counter-argument (that the notice must be more explicit).

***

A3.) See A1 and A2.

***