RONR Bylaw Glitch #1 (of 2): The Officer Gap

[jstackpo]

Start by reading, carefully, p. 585, "Section 2", lines 25-29.

Consider:  At the election meeting, Charlie gets elected (doesn't really matter what office) and, sometime later when the meeting ends,  he takes office and serves (with distinction) for his one year term. He doesn't choose to run for office again. 

A year later, at the next election meeting, the election is scheduled early in the meeting, in anticipation of possible re-balloting, but Fred is promptly elected to the office that Charlie held, and Charlie's term ends at the moment Fred is declared elected. So who holds that office for the remainder of the meeting? Nobody! It doesn't get filled until the end of the meeting, when Fred takes over.  

Granted this won't be much of a problem in most cases, but suppose the Charlie/Fred office is the presidency?  The presiding office becomes vacant, and perhaps the vice-president presides.  But suppose the vice-presidential office also turns over in the same way.  Empty again. The gap introduces a (formal) problem that has to be accommodated, probably by an election of a chair pro tem.   The bylaws shouldn't cause such an inconvenience, but they do.

The A-Team seems to have recognized this (little) perturbation to a smooth running meeting, and inserted a parenthetical new rule on page 573, lines 31-33.  But that rule is NOT found in the sample bylaws and, as we all know, bylaws supersede RONR where they conflict.  Why, by the way, is it parenthetical?  It is a perfectly good rule; was the A-Team ashamed of it?

I can think of ways to correct the glitch in the sample bylaws, but let us see if the A-Team does so in RONR/12. And how they go about it.

[Dan Honemann]

I agree that the rule on page 573, lines 31-33 is a perfectly good rule, and I submit that it is one which should be kept in mind when reading the provisions of Article IV, Section 3, of the sample bylaws.

I do not agree that there is a conflict between what the sample bylaws say in Article IV, Section 3, and the rules in RONR which explain how phrases customarily used to describe terms of office (as outlined on pp. 573-74) are to be interpreted. 

 

[Alexis Hunt]

I'm travelling so I can't review the wording in RONR. But as an interesting tidbit, the office of President of Ireland works this way: the previous holder's term ends the day before their successor's inauguration, and the new President's term begins once they are inaugurated, thus leading to a gap of 11-12 hours where there is a vacancy. According to Wikipedia, there has never been need for the Presidential Commission during this time.

[jstackpo]

On 9/22/2019 at 9:57 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I agree that the rule on page 573, lines 31-33 is a perfectly good rule, and I submit that it is one which should be kept in mind when reading the provisions of Article IV, Section 3, of the sample bylaws.

Yes, but...  the bylaw as written clearly contains a gap (like the Irish have) which is sort of absurd.  Why should it be necessary to "keep in mind" RONR's (parenthetical) interpretation to eliminate the absurdity when the sample bylaws could be augmented by inserting the words "and qualified" right after "elected". "Qualified"  includes the mere passage of time (i.e., until the end of the meeting when the new guy takes office) as in the XXth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.   No need for "interpretation" or "keeping RONR in mind" then as the bylaw provision stands alone with no gap.