Election of Officers after creation in Bylaws

[Guest Quilter]

Our Quilt Guild has revised the Bylaws and Standing Rules that we anticipate will be accepted at the August meeting.  In the new revision two new positions have been created.  In notifying the membership of the revision, and need for election may we hold the election the same evening or do we need to wait until the next meeting?

[Josh Martin]

58 minutes ago, Guest Quilter said:

Our Quilt Guild has revised the Bylaws and Standing Rules that we anticipate will be accepted at the August meeting.  In the new revision two new positions have been created.  In notifying the membership of the revision, and need for election may we hold the election the same evening or do we need to wait until the next meeting?

It is in order to fill the positions during the same meeting. The notice of the revision serves as sufficient notice of the election of the new positions.

Edited August 7, 2019 at 04:56 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

43 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

It is in order to fill the positions during the same meeting. The notice of the revision serves as sufficient notice of the election of the new positions.

This might be true, but it makes me uncomfortable unless the notice includedsa statement that any new elected positions created would be filled by an election at that meeting.  Since this is apparently a bylaws revision and there is no "scope of notice" issue, there is no way of knowing what new positions might ultimately be created at this meeting.  The assembly could certainly schedule the elections for a future date. 

I actually question whether holding the elections at the same meeting at which the positions are created is in order without notice of that fact, but I cannot point to anything in RONR to back that up.  It just makes me uncomfortable.

[Gary Novosielski]

I see no harm in including in the notice of the bylaw amendment words to the effect that, should this amendment pass, nominations and elections to fill the newly created offices will be in order at this meeting.

I agree that such an explicit reminder may not be technically required, but I think it would be politically advisable.

[Guest Guest Quilter]

Thanks for your replies.  To clarify, the members were notified at the last meeting in June (we do not meet in July) that the Vice President of Programs would be split into two positions, 1st Vice President would be in charge of the current year program and the 2nd Vice President would be in charge of future years programs.

Again thank you for your responses!!

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

This might be true, but it makes me uncomfortable unless the notice includedsa statement that any new elected positions created would be filled by an election at that meeting.  Since this is apparently a bylaws revision and there is no "scope of notice" issue, there is no way of knowing what new positions might ultimately be created at this meeting.  The assembly could certainly schedule the elections for a future date. 

I actually question whether holding the elections at the same meeting at which the positions are created is in order without notice of that fact, but I cannot point to anything in RONR to back that up.  It just makes me uncomfortable.

I have no disagreement that it is at least desirable (even if not strictly required) to specifically provide notice regarding the election of the new positions (pending approval), and it seems that this was done in the scenario presented here.

Edited August 7, 2019 at 09:43 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

1 hour ago, Guest Guest Quilter said:

Thanks for your replies.  To clarify, the members were notified at the last meeting in June (we do not meet in July) that the Vice President of Programs would be split into two positions, 1st Vice President would be in charge of the current year program and the 2nd Vice President would be in charge of future years programs.

Again thank you for your responses!!

I'm sure that what you meant was that the members were notified not that it "would be split", but that a bylaws amendment to that effect would be presented to them for their consideration.