Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
Guest sela

co presidents

Recommended Posts

Guest sela

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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×