Guest sela Posted January 25, 2017 at 03:25 AM Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 at 03:25 AM An organization's bylaws allow for the election of co-presidents and allows for nominations from the floor at the election meeting At the election meeting, if someone challenges the co-presidents for the office of president, do they run against them as a duo or do the three people runoff to determine the one president? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 25, 2017 at 03:41 AM Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 at 03:41 AM Since RONR makes no provision for co-presidents (or co-anythings), except to recommend against the practice, you are on your own here. I don't think we can help you other than to say this co-president thing is a bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 26, 2017 at 10:54 PM Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 at 10:54 PM On 1/24/2017 at 10:25 PM, Guest sela said: An organization's bylaws allow for the election of co-presidents and allows for nominations from the floor at the election meeting At the election meeting, if someone challenges the co-presidents for the office of president, do they run against them as a duo or do the three people runoff to determine the one president? Your custom rules supersede those in RONR, so RONR does not address this situation. If you have no rules on the subject, it may be time to add some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted January 27, 2017 at 12:27 AM Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 at 12:27 AM 1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said: Your custom rules supersede those in RONR, so RONR does not address this situation. If you have no rules on the subject, it may be time to add some. Or better yet, renove the provision so you don't have to worry about these sorts of issues (or any of the many other dilemmas created by having co-presidents). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted January 27, 2017 at 01:37 AM Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 at 01:37 AM In defense of the idea, having co-presidents is a great way for two people to share the burden of pointing the finger at each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrEntropy Posted January 27, 2017 at 08:49 PM Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 at 08:49 PM 19 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said: In defense of the idea, having co-presidents is a great way for two people to share the burden of pointing the finger at each other. Hah! Indeed. This is what tends to happen. Consider coming upon a scene with a fallen man lying on the ground. He is suffering grave injury. You have some EMT training and try to help, but someone has to call an ambulance. There are two people who have gathered near. Which strategy is more effective: a) "Someone call an ambulance", or b_) "YOU call an ambulance", pointing at one of the co-observers. ?? I know this has been harped on many times in this forum, but I don't think it can really be emphasized enough: Don't have co-anythings. But if you insist, be prepared to invent the rules for how to deal with the messes it creates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 27, 2017 at 08:58 PM Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 at 08:58 PM Am I the only one wishing this forum had a "Like" button?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted January 28, 2017 at 07:27 PM Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 at 07:27 PM On 1/24/2017 at 10:25 PM, Guest sela said: An organization's bylaws allow for the election of co-presidents and allows for nominations from the floor at the election meeting At the election meeting, if someone challenges the co-presidents for the office of president, do they run against them as a duo or do the three people runoff to determine the one president? You do not have an office of President, as you have two offices of President. As such if there are two positions and three candidates, an election would have to be held. If one candidate receives a majority of votes cast, then that person is elected to the first position and another round of balloting would be required for the remaining position. However, if two candidates receive a majority vote (unlikely) then both would be elected and no other balloting would be required. It is far better, as others have stated, to simply remove the requirement for Presidents. Have more than one Vice President to help assist the President if required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 28, 2017 at 08:43 PM Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 at 08:43 PM 1 hour ago, Rev Ed said: It is far better, as others have stated, to simply remove the requirement for Presidents. . . . Did you perhaps intend to say "remove the requirement for co-presidents"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 28, 2017 at 10:00 PM Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 at 10:00 PM Perhaps Rev Ed made a Freudian slip, reflecting on the political situation to his South. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 28, 2017 at 10:28 PM Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 at 10:28 PM 26 minutes ago, jstackpo said: Perhaps Rev Ed made a Freudian slip, reflecting on the political situation to his South. This forum is not the place for this sort of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 28, 2017 at 11:18 PM Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 at 11:18 PM Yessir! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted January 30, 2017 at 05:02 PM Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 at 05:02 PM On 1/28/2017 at 3:43 PM, Richard Brown said: Did you perhaps intend to say "remove the requirement for co-presidents"? Yes, sorry for the error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 30, 2017 at 07:46 PM Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 at 07:46 PM On 1/28/2017 at 1:27 PM, Rev Ed said: You do not have an office of President, as you have two offices of President. As such if there are two positions and three candidates, an election would have to be held. If one candidate receives a majority of votes cast, then that person is elected to the first position and another round of balloting would be required for the remaining position. However, if two candidates receive a majority vote (unlikely) then both would be elected and no other balloting would be required. I'm not sure about this at all. It is not clear to me whether the organization's bylaws require that there shall be co-presidents or permit there to be co-presidents. I think Mr. Brown and others are correct that the society will need to interpret its bylaws for itself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted January 31, 2017 at 05:57 AM Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 at 05:57 AM 10 hours ago, Josh Martin said: I'm not sure about this at all. It is not clear to me whether the organization's bylaws require that there shall be co-presidents or permit there to be co-presidents. I think Mr. Brown and others are correct that the society will need to interpret its bylaws for itself But it is still better to simply remove the option/requirement for Co-Presidents. It will just make things simpler - plus they (the organization) will not go through the yearly argument of what the By-laws mean with this regard and how to deal with it. And no finger pointing if Co-Presidents are elected (each 'President' cannot blame the other if responsibilities are not filled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts