When to Vote to Fill an Officer Vacancy

[Guest CFREAVES]

I am in an organization which had two elected officers resign.  Our Bylaws state that: All officers are elected by ballot, except the Parliamentarian who shall be appointed by the President.  Our outgoing President accepted the resignations of the two elected officers and appointed their replacements before she left office (political move, IMO).  A couple of the members raised a point of order as this is a violation of our documents.  The President responded that since our organization documents say that: The Election of officers shall be held at the November meeting of each year, we cannot vote until next November.  The language states: The following offices shall be filled in the same period (officer list) and in the alternate year, the following offices shall be filled (officer list). The President has taken the position that officers can only be elected once a year (in November) and as such, that she can appoint individuals to serve the resigning officer positions for full terms (one person had just been elected, but not installed in the job - an incomplete election (?); the other resigned mid-term).  Several members have stated that the provision she cites only deals with the election of officers for SCHEDULED vacancies.  Since the Bylaws are clear - ALL officers are to be elected by ballot, they argue that the "appointment right" is moot and that the President should only deal with WHEN the election will be held.  

The Bylaws are silent as to when the election should be held and she is saying that it must be in November based upon the Bylaws provision.  Robert's Rules for Dummies suggests that it should be at the next regular meeting of the members.  Also, Robert's Rules itself would suggest that vacancies can be filled at regular meetings. In the footnote on page 654 (11th edition) RROO talks about coordinating a resignation with the notice to elect the replacement at the next meeting to avoid any break in service.

MY QUESTION is whether there is anything more substantial that supports the contention that the right of the members to vote to elect their elected officers cannot be taken away and that the vote should be at the next meeting of the members (or at a special meeting) and not in November.

[Rob Elsman]

See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 467, 468.

[Atul Kapur]

Duplicate post