How is staggering accomplished if term length is indicated in bylaws?

[jggorman]

We have a number of departments that are split so that they elect senators and alternates in even-numbered years and half elect them in odd-numbered years according to our bylaw. Some of these department are merging into departments that vote in the opposite years. This will cause terms that two-years as indicated in our bylaws to expire on the wrong odd/even year in some cases.

How is staggering accomplished if term length is indicated in bylaws? Our bylaws indicate this below, but this may be ambiguous because these are terms expiring in a the wrong year.

0. Our bylaws: "New Senators necessitated by department expansion, resignations, sabbaticals and similar interim absences shall be selected in ranked order from the list of alternates. Those filling interim vacancies shall serve until the return of the Senator whom they are replacing."

If our bylaws indicate both that the terms are two years and the year that elections take place, how do we resolve the conflict. There are three solutions being considered:

1. Shorten terms of senators that would eventually merge into a department with the opposite odd/even election requirement.
2. Let alternates serve for one year.
3. Let the vacant seat stay empty for a year.

Also, does RONR 46:34 apply and require that we choose solution number 1. above?

46:34      If the multiple positions have varying terms (as may happen when terms are staggered or there is an election to fill the remainder of an unexpired term) and the differing term lengths have not been assigned different sections of the ballot, the longer terms are allocated among those receiving a majority vote in the order in which they obtain greater numbers of votes. If there is a tie, the tied candidates may agree which of them will take a longer term; if they do not agree, the question is put to a vote on the next ballot.

Thanks for any insight you can offer.

Edited April 13, 2024 at 07:36 PM by jggorman
grammar

[Josh Martin]

On 4/13/2024 at 12:52 PM, jggorman said:

We have a number of departments that are split so that they elect senators and alternates in even-numbered years and half elect them in odd-numbered years according to our bylaw. Some of these department are merging into departments that vote in the opposite years. This will cause terms that two-years as indicated in our bylaws to expire on the wrong odd/even year in some cases.

How is staggering accomplished if term length is indicated in bylaws? 

This is an interesting question. Ordinarily, the only reason something like this would occur is if there is an amendment to the bylaws, and the organization would resolve the issue by adopting a proviso handling the details of the transition.

But this is a rather unusual situation in which this transition will arise without any amendment to the bylaws.

I am inclined to think that the organization will ultimately have to interpret its own rules on this matter, and I expect because the rules may not anticipate this situation, it may ultimately be up to the organization's preferences.

On 4/13/2024 at 12:52 PM, jggorman said:

Our bylaws indicate this below, but this may be ambiguous because these are terms expiring in a the wrong year.

0. Our bylaws: "New Senators necessitated by department expansion, resignations, sabbaticals and similar interim absences shall be selected in ranked order from the list of alternates. Those filling interim vacancies shall serve until the return of the Senator whom they are replacing."

It's not entirely clear to me that this rule is applicable in the present instance, but to the extent that it is, I agree it is ambiguous how it applies to this situation.

On 4/13/2024 at 12:52 PM, jggorman said:

If our bylaws indicate both that the terms are two years and the year that elections take place, how do we resolve the conflict. There are three solutions being considered:

1. Shorten terms of senators that would eventually merge into a department with the opposite odd/even election requirement.
2. Let alternates serve for one year.
3. Let the vacant seat stay empty for a year.

I would add that another option would be to lengthen the terms of senators in order to resolve the odd/even issue. Ordinarily, shortening or lengthening the terms is really the only way to resolve a transition like this. But I suppose the existence of the alternates might create some alternative options. (As I understand it, the "alternates" proposal is that if the terms of the senators expire, the alternates would serve to fill the gap until the terms are aligned correctly.)

In my view, it's not really an option to simply choose to leave vacant a position called for in the bylaws. Beyond that, however, I have no personal preference on how the assembly resolves this issue.

On 4/13/2024 at 12:52 PM, jggorman said:

Also, does RONR 46:34 apply and require that we choose solution number 1. above?

46:34      If the multiple positions have varying terms (as may happen when terms are staggered or there is an election to fill the remainder of an unexpired term) and the differing term lengths have not been assigned different sections of the ballot, the longer terms are allocated among those receiving a majority vote in the order in which they obtain greater numbers of votes. If there is a tie, the tied candidates may agree which of them will take a longer term; if they do not agree, the question is put to a vote on the next ballot.

No, 46:34 (nor anything else in RONR) mandates that the organize choose a particular solution for this matter.

But if the solution the organization settles on involves electing multiple positions with varying terms, then 46:34 is applicable.

Edited April 14, 2024 at 08:49 AM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

On 4/14/2024 at 4:47 AM, Josh Martin said:

But this is a rather unusual situation in which this transition will arise without any amendment to the bylaws.

I will be very surprised if there isn't something in the bylaws that will need to be amended as a result of the departments merging.

It may be as simple as the names of the departments or the criteria by which bodies are entitled to Senators. For example, if the bylaws say every department can elect/appojnt one Senator, then that would affect the merged departments.

I suggest, @jggorman, that you read the bylaws carefully to ensure that the implications of the merger are clear and, if necessary, appropriate amendments are made.

[Josh Martin]

On 4/14/2024 at 12:21 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I will be very surprised if there isn't something in the bylaws that will need to be amended as a result of the departments merging.

It may be as simple as the names of the departments or the criteria by which bodies are entitled to Senators. For example, if the bylaws say every department can elect/appojnt one Senator, then that would affect the merged departments.

I suggest, @jggorman, that you read the bylaws carefully to ensure that the implications of the merger are clear and, if necessary, appropriate amendments are made.

Well, if this is correct, that will make things easier - when amending the bylaws, the organization can adopt a proviso to handle the transition in any manner it sees fit.

[jggorman]

Thank you for your help. We settle on suggesting the use of alternates for a year is the best option because it increase the limited representation that was cause by merging departments. Dare I tell you we are bound by law to not be able to amend our own bylaws without external authority approving the changes as a result of binding arbitration. Thanks for all your help once again.