Terms / Partial Terms

[RONR93]

The bylaws define a term of office as two (2) years.  For certain positions, the individual is elected to automatically serve 2 consecutive terms for a total of 4 years. 

It is the intent that the individuals in this position have staggered terms where all members serve for 4 consecutive years, half elected every two years.  Members are not eligible for re-election once they serve the 4 years.

In this case, when an individual completes a vacancy and only serves for part of the 4 years please provide guidance on whether we should view a term as 2 or 4 years when considering the eligibility of someone who has served a partial term (e.g. 1.5 years) to run for a full term in the next election.

Thank you!

 

 

[Josh Martin]

22 minutes ago, SanJohn said:

In this case, when an individual completes a vacancy and only serves for part of the 4 years please provide guidance on whether we should view a term as 2 or 4 years when considering the eligibility of someone who has served a partial term (e.g. 1.5 years) to run for a full term in the next election.

"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 (12th ed.) 47:4

[RONR93]

4 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

"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 (12th ed.) 47:4

Thanks, Josh.  In applying RONR, should we view a term as 2 years, as defined in the bylaws; or 4 years which is the period for which they are elected.  This is nuanced because of the staggered nature of the roles. 

If we base it on 2 years, it would be viewed as 1 term served.  If elected for the position, they would be eligible to serve another 2 years.  This would disrupt the staggering of positions.  

If we base it on 4 years, the officer would not have completed half of a 4 year term, and would be eligible to run for the usual 4 years (2 consecutive terms).  This would maintain the staggering of positions.  This approach seems more consistent with RONR and the intentions of the bylaws.  I'd appreciate your view.

[Dan Honemann]

23 minutes ago, SanJohn said:

In applying RONR, should we view a term as 2 years, as defined in the bylaws; or 4 years which is the period for which they are elected.

The latter.

[RONR93]

9 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The latter.

Thanks!

 

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, SanJohn said:

Thanks, Josh.  In applying RONR, should we view a term as 2 years, as defined in the bylaws; or 4 years which is the period for which they are elected.  This is nuanced because of the staggered nature of the roles. 

If we base it on 2 years, it would be viewed as 1 term served.  If elected for the position, they would be eligible to serve another 2 years.  This would disrupt the staggering of positions.  

If we base it on 4 years, the officer would not have completed half of a 4 year term, and would be eligible to run for the usual 4 years (2 consecutive terms).  This would maintain the staggering of positions.  This approach seems more consistent with RONR and the intentions of the bylaws.  I'd appreciate your view.

A "term of office" in the sense that phrase is used in RONR refers to the length of time a person is elected to serve in the office. So It seems to me that if a person is "elected to automatically serve 2 consecutive terms for a total of 4 years," what this really means in effect is that the person is elected to serve one four year term.

As a consequence, a person who is elected to fill a vacancy and serves for 1.5 years has served less than half of the four year term.

[Guest Puzzling]

Before I comment on any thing I would likecthe see the bylaws , what do they say about terms of office and the (bi annual?)  elections? 

[Richard Brown]

I'm not willing to say that these officers are elected to terms of four years (rather than two years) without seeing the actual wording of the bylaws.  This is especially so in view of the fact that the OP stated that the bylaws specifically define a term as being two years.  I'm thinking maybe this "four year" business is more of a custom than a bylaw provision. Without a specific bylaw provision stating that these particular officers are elected to four-year terms, I'm of the opinion that a term is two years and that an officer who has served 1.5 years is deemed to have served one full term.

[Shmuel Gerber]

9 hours ago, SanJohn said:

Members are not eligible for re-election once they serve the 4 years.

I don't see the point of guessing about all these things without knowing what the bylaws actually say, but according to this part of the question it doesn't seem to matter whether 4 years is one term or two.

[Atul Kapur]

2 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I don't see the point of guessing about all these things without knowing what the bylaws actually say

You must be new here. Welcome.

Edited April 13, 2021 at 04:00 AM by Atul Kapur

[Guest Puzzling]

19 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

"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 (12th ed.) 47:4

What would the plain English campaign make of that

Just

"No person is eligible to serve ... "

is I think preferred (and a word shorter)

 

[Dan Honemann]

 

20 hours ago, SanJohn said:

The bylaws define a term of office as two (2) years.  For certain positions, the individual is elected to automatically serve 2 consecutive terms for a total of 4 years. 

 

19 hours ago, SanJohn said:

In applying RONR, should we view a term as 2 years, as defined in the bylaws; or 4 years which is the period for which they are elected. 

Based upon these postings, I understand SanJohn to be telling us that, with respect to certain positions, the bylaws provide that persons elected to these positions are to serve for 4 years. For purposes of this discussion, I am assuming that SanJohn is correct in this regard.

I am in full agreement with Mr. Martin when he says:

18 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

A "term of office" in the sense that phrase is used in RONR refers to the length of time a person is elected to serve in the office. So It seems to me that if a person is "elected to automatically serve 2 consecutive terms for a total of 4 years," what this really means in effect is that the person is elected to serve one four year term.

As a consequence, a person who is elected to fill a vacancy and serves for 1.5 years has served less than half of the four year term.

When SanJohn asks "In applying RONR, should we view a term as 2 years, as defined in the bylaws; or 4 years which is the period for which they are elected" the rule being referred to is the rule in RONR (12th ed.) 47:4 which had just been quoted by Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin's response is correct.