Filling Vacancy in Presidency

[joneuman]

Ok, I know that you don't interpret bylaws here, BUT ... RONR on p. 557 states that "if the bylaws are silent as to the method of filling a vacancy in the specific case of the presidency, the vice president automatically becomes the president ..." Our bylaws provide "a vacancy occurring in any office shall be filled for the unexpired term by a person elected by a majority vote of the executive board." Does the "any office" fulfil the requirement of RONR and apply to the presidency or does the presidency need to be specifically spelled out?

[George Mervosh]

The office of President needs spelled out. Any office doesn't cut it, as far as RONR is concerned.

[joneuman]

That's what I was afraid of because our VPs (we have 4) have specific duties ... and now they will all move up as the vacancy is created in the lowest-ranking VP ... sigh.

[hmtcastle]

The office of President needs spelled out. Any office doesn't cut it, as far as RONR is concerned.

I'm going to disagree with Mr. Mervosh on this one and argue that the bylaws' reference to "any office" supersedes RONR's automatic succession from vice-president to president. This in spite of the italicized language on p. 442.

At least, I think, it's open to interpretation.

[hmtcastle]

At least, I think, it's open to interpretation.

And, in light of Jo's follow-up reply, I think my interpretation gains some weight.

[George Mervosh]

And, in light of Jo's follow-up reply, I think my interpretation gains some weight.

What are you interpreting? The bylaws or RONR? If you're interpreting RONR, your interpretation is incorrect in my view.

[hmtcastle]

What are you interpreting? The bylaws or RONR? If you're interpreting RONR, your interpretation is incorrect in my view.

I'm arguing that, because the four vice-presidents have specific roles, this organization adopted a bylaw to the effect that a vacancy in any office would have to be filled by the board. I don't think the fact that they (wisely) adopted RONR as their parliamentary authority means that "any office" doesn't include the president. In other words, I don't think they necessarily had to have said, "any office including the president" in order to accomplish what, presumably, they wanted.

It's one thing to be familiar with RONR but to think that "any office" doesn't mean any office suggests that RONR is some sort of "Trojan horse" carrying unwanted gifts.

[STA]

I'm going to disagree with Mr. Mervosh on this one and argue that the bylaws' reference to "any office" supersedes RONR's automatic succession from vice-president to president. This in spite of the italicized language on p. 442.

I would have thought p442 and p557 l.19-26 were conclusive.

[George Mervosh]

I would have thought p442 and p557 l.19-26 were conclusive.

That's what I was taught.

[joneuman]

I'm arguing that, because the four vice-presidents have specific roles, this organization adopted a bylaw to the effect that a vacancy in any office would have to be filled by the board. I don't think the fact that they (wisely) adopted RONR as their parliamentary authority means that "any office" doesn't include the president. In other words, I don't think they necessarily had to have said, "any office including the president" in order to accomplish what, presumably, they wanted.

It's one thing to be familiar with RONR but to think that "any office" doesn't mean any office suggests that RONR is some sort of "Trojan horse" carrying unwanted gifts.

I like your interpretation better. It was the intent that "any" office was any office ... including the president, but the concern came up about the wording "expressly provide" for the office of the president.

[George Mervosh]

I like your interpretation better. It was the intent that "any" office was any office ... including the president, but the concern came up about the wording "expressly provide" for the office of the president.

Your concern is well founded, as Mr. Anderson clearly cited.

On numerous occassions, RONR does indicate how things must be stated in the bylaws. This is one of them.

[Trina]

I like your interpretation better. It was the intent that "any" office was any office ... including the president, but the concern came up about the wording "expressly provide" for the office of the president.

If there's time, the organization could amend the bylaws to say what they were intended to say. However, if the president has already left office, that's a different story.

[hmtcastle]

I like your interpretation better.

Then convince a majority of your members and you're good to go.

And then amend your bylaws to say, "any office, and, yes, we mean any office, including the president, regardless of what it says in RONR".

[joneuman]

Then convince a majority of your members and you're good to go.

And then amend your bylaws to say, "any office, and, yes, we mean any office, including the president, regardless of what it says in RONR".

I have already drafted an amendment to the bylaws.

[Dan Honemann]

Then convince a majority of your members and you're good to go.

And then amend your bylaws to say, "any office, and, yes, we mean any office, including the president, regardless of what it says in RONR".

I'll bet they can say whatever they want to say in a much better fashion than you suggest.

But what in these bylaws do you find that meets the requirement on page 557 that .. "if another method of filling a vacancy in the presidency is desired, it must be prescribed and specified as applying to the office of president in particular."?

[joneuman]

I'll bet they can say whatever they want to say in a much better fashion than you suggest.

My amendment is simple and straighforward (I think) and doesn't pick on RONR. "A vacancy occurring in any office (including that of the president) shall be filled by a majority vote ..."

Hopefully that is specific enough.

[Dan Honemann]

My amendment is simple and straighforward (I think) and doesn't pick on RONR. "A vacancy occurring in any office (including that of the president) shall be filled by a majority vote ..."

Hopefully that is specific enough.

Yes, I think it is.