full term half term

[next exit]

Is this a 'full term" situation?

A term is defined in bylaws as a 4 year period.  The bylaws have a limit of two terms.

For the first two years person A has the job.  For the second two years person B has the job.

Person A served two years or 730 days.  Person B served two years or 731 days (leap year).  Person B then served a full 4 years.

Did Person B serve more than half a term given that extra day? (Mathematically it seems undeniably so)   Thus counting as a full term when they took over for person A, and now have

reached the two term limit?.  

[jstackpo]

Tricky math...  Here is how I would do the calculation.

The book, page 575 says that if you have served more than half (my emphasis) a term, that "counts" as a full term.

So a total term equals (365*3 + 366) days = 1461 days   (never mind those pesky years that are divisible by 100 where there is, as I recall, no leap year, except... -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_year)  So half a term is 730.5 days.

If person B served his partial term in the two year period including a leap year, he served 731 days, so I agree, Mr B has now (after serving an additional full term) reached his term limit. By only 1/2 a day.

Was the election to B's second (full) term in the morning or the evening?  (Good luck working that out!)

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

Since the bylaws say "four years," this period has 1461 days instead of the usual 1460. Half of the term is 730-1/2 days. Person B served more than that by half a day and thus is counted as having served a full term. But Person B has not reached the two-term limit because (s)he has served only one term so far.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

1 minute ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Since the bylaws say "four years," this period has 1461 days instead of the usual 1460. Half of the term is 730-1/2 days. Person B served more than that by half a day and thus is counted as having served a full term. But Person B has not reached the two-term limit because (s)he has served only one term so far.

Oops, missed that you said Person B has served the additional term already.

[Richard Brown]

I don't see what the number of days in a year or leap year has to do with anything. A year is from certain date in one year until the same date in the following year, regardless of whether that year has 365 days or 366 days.

It's the same with months. A month isn't necessarily 30 days. It may contain as few as 28 days or as many as 31 days. Someone who serves from February 15th until March 15th of a non leap year has served one month just the same as the person who serves from March 15th to April 15th. They have both served one month, even though one of those months contained only 28 days and the other month contained 31 days.

I would say in the scenaro presented by the original poster, both candidates served exactly half a term in their first two years and that neither candidate served more than half a term in the first two years In office. Each of those first two years was exactly half a term according to the information we have been given. Serving just one more minute than half a term would make a difference, but we have not been told that that is what happened.

Therefore, it is my opinion that candidate B has served exactly one and a half terms and that he is therefore eligible for another full four-year term.

However, this is ultimately a question of bylaws interpretation and it's up to this Association to determine for itself whether the first two years of either person's term constitutes more than half a term.

[Josh Martin]

14 hours ago, next exit said:

Is this a 'full term" situation?

A term is defined in bylaws as a 4 year period.  The bylaws have a limit of two terms.

For the first two years person A has the job.  For the second two years person B has the job.

Person A served two years or 730 days.  Person B served two years or 731 days (leap year).  Person B then served a full 4 years.

Did Person B serve more than half a term given that extra day? (Mathematically it seems undeniably so)   Thus counting as a full term when they took over for person A, and now have

reached the two term limit?.  

What RONR says on this subject is “The bylaws may contain a provision that "No person shall be eligible to serve ______ consecutive terms in the same office." In filling vacancies for unexpired terms, an officer who has served more than half a term in an office is considered to have served a full term.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 448)

The text provides no further guidance on how to calculate whether an officer has served “more than half a term.” So if a situation does indeed arise where a society has four year terms, an officer begins his term on a certain date, he leaves the office on the exact same date two years later, and a new person takes office on the same day, the society will have to interpret for itself such fine details as whether the fact that one of these years contained a leap year, or the exact time of the day at which the time of service for these persons began and ended, makes a difference in determining whether one of these officers has served “more than half a term.”

Out of curiosity, is this a real issue or a purely hypothetical situation?

Edited April 8, 2019 at 01:37 PM by Josh Martin