consecutive terms, board members

[Guest Sandy H]

Our bylaws say members can't serve more than two consecutive terms. One board member left the board in the middle of her second term for unavoidable reasons. Another person was appointed to complete her term. The former board member is back now and wants to run for board member again (newly vacated position). Can she run for the newly vacated position? Her original term, though filled by another person now, is still ongoing? Or does an interruption--for whatever reason--mean since she didn't finish that term, it's not considered a consecutive term? Hope I haven't been too confusing in my question?

[hmtcastle]

Can she run for the newly vacated position? Her original term, though filled by another person now, is still ongoing? Or does an interruption--for whatever reason--mean since she didn't finish that term, it's not considered a consecutive term?

Well, our stock answer is that your organization has to interpret its own bylaws. If it helps, RONR says that if you've served more than half a term, you're considered to have served the full term. Or words to that effect.

If she's elected, someone can raise a point of order to the effect that she's not qualified. The chair will rule on the point of order and his ruling can be appealed. So in the end, you guessed it, your members will decide what your rule means.

[Robert B Fish]

Our bylaws say members can't serve more than two consecutive terms. One board member left the board in the middle of her second term for unavoidable reasons. Another person was appointed to complete her term. The former board member is back now and wants to run for board member again (newly vacated position). Can she run for the newly vacated position? Her original term, though filled by another person now, is still ongoing? Or does an interruption--for whatever reason--mean since she didn't finish that term, it's not considered a consecutive term? Hope I haven't been too confusing in my question?

It depends on the EXACT wording of your bylaws. You will have to interpret them.

Daring to incur the wrath of Dan, I'll opine that unless there is a statement that following the service of 2 terms, there is a period of ineligibility (e.g. 1 term), it doesn’t' sound like the word consecutive applies.

-Bob

[David A Foulkes]

Our bylaws say members can't serve more than two consecutive terms. One board member left the board in the middle of her second term for unavoidable reasons. Another person was appointed to complete her term. The former board member is back now and wants to run for board member again (newly vacated position). Can she run for the newly vacated position? Her original term, though filled by another person now, is still ongoing? Or does an interruption--for whatever reason--mean since she didn't finish that term, it's not considered a consecutive term? Hope I haven't been too confusing in my question?

As noted, the exact wording of the bylaws is critical here, and will be your organization's responsibility to interpret, if an ambiguity exists (which seems possible). If it's clear in what the bylaws state, then they will hold the answer to your question. An ambiguity must exist before interpretation may be employed, although deciding if that ambiguity exists is a questionable concept, imho. Do the bylaws state (or imply) that this member cannot serve two terms in the same office? or simply on the board (in any capacity whatsoever)? You see, the interpretation is key. Did she serve for at least half of her second term? Per RONR, that means she served the full second term, although your bylaws again may say otherwise. That is where (most, if not all of) your answers lie.

Well, our stock answer is that your organization has to interpret its own bylaws. If it helps, RONR says that if you've served more than half a term, you're considered to have served the full term. Or words to that effect.

If she's elected, someone can raise a point of order to the effect that she's not qualified. The chair will rule on the point of order and his ruling can be appealed. So in the end, you guessed it, your members will decide what your rule means.

I'm troubled. This "point of order re:member's disqualification to serve - chair rules not well taken - appeal - assembly votes - does not uphold chair's decision" process.... seems to give the assembly the authority and power to violate the bylaws if in fact this member has served (by virtue of >50% of second term) what amounts to two consecutive terms. Understood (as desirable) the membership retains the utmost power and authority, but to violate the bylaws in this way? Or did I just crawl out on the wrong limb?

[hmtcastle]

This . . . process.... seems to give the assembly the authority and power to violate the bylaws . . .

The membership always has the option of violating the bylaws, and it needn't go through the appellate process to do so.

[Josh Martin]

I'm troubled. This "point of order re:member's disqualification to serve - chair rules not well taken - appeal - assembly votes - does not uphold chair's decision" process.... seems to give the assembly the authority and power to violate the bylaws if in fact this member has served (by virtue of >50% of second term) what amounts to two consecutive terms. Understood (as desirable) the membership retains the utmost power and authority, but to violate the bylaws in this way? Or did I just crawl out on the wrong limb?

Nothing in RONR will force an assembly to follow its own rules.

[David A Foulkes]

Nothing in RONR will force an assembly to follow its own rules.

Certainly Mr. Honemann et al won't rush down there and clunk them over the head with a hardcover edition of RONR and yell "what are you doing?!?!?" But this process is "endorsed" or "approved" (you understand my meaning, I trust - insert your own word) by RONR as the correct parliamentary procedure. And in light of the section that states the bylaws cannot be suspended by any vote (save the rules of order and bylaws which include their own suspension approval)..... well, I guess I find it unsettling. That's all. No need to punish this horse further.