Bonnie E. Posted January 19, 2023 at 09:39 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2023 at 09:39 PM In my organization's annual assembly, there will be legislation presented reading "No current or future Secretary may serve more than ten (10) consecutive years." The current Secretary has served 15 consecutive years. I read that to mean that she cannot run for Secretary this year if this legislation is approved. Am I correct there? Also, if it just said, "No Secretary may serve more than ten (10) consecutive years," wouldn't that mean the same thing? I believe it would apply to her and she could not run for the position this year. If someone else was elected this year, though, she could run again next year and serve up to 10 consecutive years. Am I right here, too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caryn Ann Harlos Posted January 19, 2023 at 09:43 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2023 at 09:43 PM What do you mean by legislation? If you do mean some sort of public law that would beyond the scope here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 19, 2023 at 09:47 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2023 at 09:47 PM On 1/19/2023 at 1:39 PM, Bonnie E. said: The current Secretary has served 15 consecutive years. I read that to mean that she cannot run for Secretary this year if this legislation is approved. Am I correct there? Yes - and, in fact, it would mean she would immediately cease being Secretary, unless a proviso is adopted providing otherwise. On 1/19/2023 at 1:39 PM, Bonnie E. said: Also, if it just said, "No Secretary may serve more than ten (10) consecutive years," wouldn't that mean the same thing? Yes. On 1/19/2023 at 1:39 PM, Bonnie E. said: I believe it would apply to her and she could not run for the position this year. If someone else was elected this year, though, she could run again next year and serve up to 10 consecutive years. Am I right here, too? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonnie E. Posted January 19, 2023 at 10:03 PM Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2023 at 10:03 PM On 1/19/2023 at 4:43 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said: What do you mean by legislation? If you do mean some sort of public law that would beyond the scope here. It is a change to our organization's bylaws/Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 19, 2023 at 10:15 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2023 at 10:15 PM On 1/19/2023 at 4:39 PM, Bonnie E. said: In my organization's annual assembly, there will be legislation presented reading "No current or future Secretary may serve more than ten (10) consecutive years." The current Secretary has served 15 consecutive years. I read that to mean that she cannot run for Secretary this year if this legislation is approved. Am I correct there? Also, if it just said, "No Secretary may serve more than ten (10) consecutive years," wouldn't that mean the same thing? I believe it would apply to her and she could not run for the position this year. If someone else was elected this year, though, she could run again next year and serve up to 10 consecutive years. Am I right here, too? Yes. But pay close attention to @Josh Martin's answer. If you adopt this provision during your annual meeting, and it passes, the Secretary is instantly removed from office, which you may not want to happen in the middle of a meeting. Are your elections held during that same meeting, and if so, are they before or after the consideration of that bylaws amendment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caryn Ann Harlos Posted January 19, 2023 at 10:18 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2023 at 10:18 PM By the way the "current or future" language sounds like someone was trying to sound like an attorney or parliamentarian but are not. That is completely superfluous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 19, 2023 at 10:20 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2023 at 10:20 PM On 1/19/2023 at 5:18 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said: By the way the "current or future" language sounds like someone was trying to sound like an attorney or parliamentarian but are not. That is completely superfluous. Agreed. The only time addintional qualification would be needed is if this provision were not intended to affect the current occupant of the office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonnie E. Posted January 19, 2023 at 10:33 PM Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2023 at 10:33 PM The legislation is considered immediately prior to election of officers. installation of new officers follows that same evening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonnie E. Posted January 19, 2023 at 10:38 PM Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2023 at 10:38 PM Can you suggest a RONR reference for this? I would like to have some reference for the proponents of this legislation and have not been able to locate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caryn Ann Harlos Posted January 19, 2023 at 10:41 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2023 at 10:41 PM (edited) On 1/19/2023 at 3:38 PM, Bonnie E. said: Can you suggest a RONR reference for this? I would like to have some reference for the proponents of this legislation and have not been able to locate it. Reference on what? Effective time of a bylaws change absent a proviso? 57:15-17 Not adding superfluous words to bylaws? 56:11 Edited January 19, 2023 at 10:42 PM by Caryn Ann Harlos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonnie E. Posted January 19, 2023 at 10:49 PM Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2023 at 10:49 PM Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caryn Ann Harlos Posted January 19, 2023 at 10:50 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2023 at 10:50 PM You are very welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted January 20, 2023 at 12:24 AM Report Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 12:24 AM (edited) Those words make it clear to any who are not intimately familiar with parliamentary procedure that it applies to the incumbent. This possibly includes the proposers. Edited January 20, 2023 at 12:25 AM by Atul Kapur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caryn Ann Harlos Posted January 20, 2023 at 12:26 AM Report Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 12:26 AM (edited) On 1/19/2023 at 5:24 PM, Atul Kapur said: Those words make it clear to any who are not intimately familiar with parliamentary procedure that it applies to the incumbent. This possibly includes the proposers. But for that to be the case, it is then a provision of a transitional nature since any future secretary will have been elected under those terms, and items of a transitional nature should not be included in the bylaws. Edited January 20, 2023 at 12:27 AM by Caryn Ann Harlos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted January 20, 2023 at 12:42 AM Report Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 12:42 AM Really? Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caryn Ann Harlos Posted January 20, 2023 at 12:43 AM Report Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 12:43 AM Umm yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted January 20, 2023 at 12:48 AM Report Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 12:48 AM (edited) Let me be explicit: yes, I know that. The point of my response was to try to explain why someone would include those words in the motion: because they wanted to avoid questions about that point from unsophisticated members or they themselves are unsophisticated and believed it was necessary to say that. The fact that the words are superfluous was already mentioned so didn't I want to repeat the point. Edited January 20, 2023 at 12:50 AM by Atul Kapur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caryn Ann Harlos Posted January 20, 2023 at 12:53 AM Report Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 12:53 AM Okay, but it's still bad practice. One could make all bylaws worse than the tax code using that mindset and sure to sneak in ambiguities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drake Savory Posted January 20, 2023 at 03:15 AM Report Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 03:15 AM Am I correct that should this amendment passes, the assembly needs to immediately elect a Secretary pro-tem until the new Secretary takes office? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted January 20, 2023 at 03:23 AM Report Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 03:23 AM Yes, unless they adopt a proviso saying otherwise, as @Josh Martin stated. There will be a gap between the bylaw amendment being adopted & the secretary being out of the office due to ineligibility (which both will occur at the same time) and the election of a new secretary. Given what we are told, it will presumably be a short gap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 20, 2023 at 03:13 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 03:13 PM On 1/19/2023 at 7:15 PM, Drake Savory said: Am I correct that should this amendment passes, the assembly needs to immediately elect a Secretary pro-tem until the new Secretary takes office? In the event this passes without a proviso, I would think the logical next step would be for the chair to ask if there is any objection to the now former Secretary serving as Secretary Pro Tempore for the remainder of the meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted January 20, 2023 at 05:38 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 05:38 PM Be ready in case the now former secretary isthe first to object! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts