lpc124 Posted December 16, 2016 at 12:09 PM Report Share Posted December 16, 2016 at 12:09 PM We have a wonderful president and vice president serving on our church's board of trustees. The bylaws state that they can hold up to 2 consecutive 1 year terms and they are now both completing the second 1 year term. (The bylaws allow them to serve again but after a 1 year break.) The situation is that our minister is taking sabbatical this coming year and the board is in agreement that they would like to have the president and vice president remain in their roles for another 1 year term to provide the necessary stability for a rapidly growing and active congregation. How would we handle this at the January business meeting when we are scheduled to vote to fill these two offices? Would it be acceptable to make a motion to acknowledge where the bylaws stand on these board terms and to make an exception with a clear rationale and time frame that we would not be in accordance with our bylaws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted December 16, 2016 at 12:23 PM Report Share Posted December 16, 2016 at 12:23 PM No, the bylaws would have to be amended to allow it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 16, 2016 at 09:00 PM Report Share Posted December 16, 2016 at 09:00 PM 8 hours ago, lpc124 said: We have a wonderful president and vice president serving on our church's board of trustees. The bylaws state that they can hold up to 2 consecutive 1 year terms and they are now both completing the second 1 year term. (The bylaws allow them to serve again but after a 1 year break.) The situation is that our minister is taking sabbatical this coming year and the board is in agreement that they would like to have the president and vice president remain in their roles for another 1 year term to provide the necessary stability for a rapidly growing and active congregation. How would we handle this at the January business meeting when we are scheduled to vote to fill these two offices? Would it be acceptable to make a motion to acknowledge where the bylaws stand on these board terms and to make an exception with a clear rationale and time frame that we would not be in accordance with our bylaws? Absolutely not. Such a motion would be out of order, and would probably create a continuing breach. The church would have to amend its bylaws, using the method contained in the bylaws for their own amendment, in order to change any term limits contained in the bylaws. Such rules are not suspendible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted December 18, 2016 at 06:23 PM Report Share Posted December 18, 2016 at 06:23 PM I agree with the previous posters. Another alternative possibly worth pursuing is for the"new" board to invite these two outgoing members to attend and participate in board meetings as guests. They can be invited (or permitted) to attend by a majority vote and to participate in debate by a two thirds vote. I am not opining on whether this is advisable, but rather just that it is a possibility. Doing this might well create problems of its own. I have a hunch the "new" board will rise to the occasion with or without the participation of the outgoing officers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted December 18, 2016 at 07:22 PM Report Share Posted December 18, 2016 at 07:22 PM I have a good idea: why not simply switch roles. The current Vice President could run for President and the current President could run for Vice President. That would get around the By-law, legally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefe Posted December 19, 2016 at 04:02 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2016 at 04:02 PM 20 hours ago, Rev Ed said: I have a god idea: why not simply switch roles. The current Vice President could run for President and the current President could run for Vice President. That would get around the By-law, legally. Most likely that would not work. It doesn't appear that they are restricted from running again due to their position, but rather their term. And in this case both of their terms are up and they must take 1 year off prior to being elected again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted December 19, 2016 at 05:11 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2016 at 05:11 PM 1 hour ago, keefe said: Most likely that would not work. It doesn't appear that they are restricted from running again due to their position, but rather their term. And in this case both of their terms are up and they must take 1 year off prior to being elected again. That hadn't occurred to me. Maybe, maybe not It depends on what the bylaws actually say, which, from this remove, we cannot sensibly and confidently opine upon. lpc (I leave out your ID number out of deference), what do they say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted December 19, 2016 at 05:12 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2016 at 05:12 PM 21 hours ago, Rev Ed said: I have a god idea: why not simply switch roles. The current Vice President could run for President and the current President could run for Vice President. That would get around the By-law, legally. Great Steaming Cobnuts,O Wonderful Edness One, please fix your furshlugginer typo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefe Posted December 19, 2016 at 05:20 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2016 at 05:20 PM 8 minutes ago, Gary c Tesser said: That hadn't occurred to me. Maybe, maybe not It depends on what the bylaws actually say, which, from this remove, we cannot sensibly and confidently opine upon. lpc (I leave out your ID number out of deference), what do they say? I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted December 19, 2016 at 06:38 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2016 at 06:38 PM 1 hour ago, keefe said: I agree. That's a relief. Some might think that the wording we have is explicit. specific, and unambiguous enough. O keefe (not to be conflated with your descendent O'Keefe), we have narrowly dodged our first quarrel. God thing we're getting along so well on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted December 19, 2016 at 06:41 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2016 at 06:41 PM 4 minutes ago, Gary c Tesser said: God thing we're getting along so well on this. Is that the Canadian or Brooklyn spelling of good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted December 19, 2016 at 07:00 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2016 at 07:00 PM 12 minutes ago, George Mervosh said: Is that the Canadian or Brooklyn spelling of good? That daffy Canad did it first Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted December 19, 2016 at 11:07 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2016 at 11:07 PM 5 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said: Great Steaming Cobnuts,O Wonderful Edness One, please fix your furshlugginer typo. Done - thanks for the catch. 7 hours ago, keefe said: Most likely that would not work. It doesn't appear that they are restricted from running again due to their position, but rather their term. And in this case both of their terms are up and they must take 1 year off prior to being elected again. How does the restriction actually read then? Does it say "two terms in one position" or "two terms on the Board"? In the former, it would mean that the two officers could simply swap positions (ok, assuming the membership votes that way.) In the latter, you are stuck and have to amend the By-laws if the members want to keep these members on the Board for the upcoming year. On a side note, if necessary the Board could create a Standing Committee (unless the By-laws state otherwise) consisting of these two members and all the Board members - call it the "General Committee" and it allows the Board to meet with these two members in a formal situation and provide input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 20, 2016 at 12:30 AM Report Share Posted December 20, 2016 at 12:30 AM 8 hours ago, keefe said: Most likely that would not work. It doesn't appear that they are restricted from running again due to their position, but rather their term. And in this case both of their terms are up and they must take 1 year off prior to being elected again. That would depend on the exact language. Does it say that having served as in one office for n terms, a person may not run for any other office? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 20, 2016 at 01:54 AM Report Share Posted December 20, 2016 at 01:54 AM 2 hours ago, Rev Ed said: On a side note, if necessary the Board could create a Standing Committee (unless the By-laws state otherwise) consisting of these two members and all the Board members - call it the "General Committee" and it allows the Board to meet with these two members in a formal situation and provide input. It could, but this would require the board to hold two sets of meetings and take action on a lot of things twice - once in this "committee" and once in the actual board. So this seems unnecessarily elaborate to me. It seems simpler for the board to invite these individuals to its meetings and to suspend the rules to permit them to speak in debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted December 20, 2016 at 03:54 AM Report Share Posted December 20, 2016 at 03:54 AM 1 hour ago, Josh Martin said: . . . It seems simpler for the board to invite these individuals to its meetings and to suspend the rules to permit them to speak in debate. I agree. I think that's what I said ten or twelve posts ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted December 20, 2016 at 07:25 AM Report Share Posted December 20, 2016 at 07:25 AM 3 hours ago, Richard Brown said: I agree. I think that's what I said ten or twelve posts ago. Man I'm sorry I called you a pollywog or misspelled it or both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted December 20, 2016 at 10:41 PM Report Share Posted December 20, 2016 at 10:41 PM 19 hours ago, Josh Martin said: It could, but this would require the board to hold two sets of meetings and take action on a lot of things twice - once in this "committee" and once in the actual board. So this seems unnecessarily elaborate to me. It seems simpler for the board to invite these individuals to its meetings and to suspend the rules to permit them to speak in debate. Simpler, yes. But the advantage is that the Committee does not have to deal with every issue that might come up at a Board meeting. It all depends on what you want to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted December 21, 2016 at 12:40 AM Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 at 12:40 AM 1 hour ago, Rev Ed said: Simpler, yes. But the advantage is that the Committee does not have to deal with every issue that might come up at a Board meeting. It all depends on what you want to do. Then invite the two outgoing (or former) board members to board meetings only when the wisdom of their experience is desired. Take those issues up early in the meeting and let them be on their way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted December 21, 2016 at 02:19 AM Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 at 02:19 AM 1 hour ago, Richard Brown said: Then invite the two outgoing (or former) board members to board meetings only when the wisdom of their experience is desired. Take those issues up early in the meeting and let them be on their way. Yes, that works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts