chair of a committee refusing to step down

[Guest Pam G]

At our annual meeting it was thought that the appointed chairs of committees were terminated with the new officers.

[David A Foulkes]

At our annual meeting it was thought that the appointed chairs of committees were terminated with the new officers.

Typically, in ordinary societies, standing committees serve for a term corresponding to that of the officers, so the committees are reappointed with each new administration, unless the bylaws say otherwise.

Do your bylaws include anything in reference to the re-appointment of committees at your annual meeting, or otherwise?

[hmtcastle]

Typically, in ordinary societies, standing committees serve for a term corresponding to that of the officers, so the committees are reappointed with each new administration, unless the bylaws say otherwise.

But there is no "automatic termination" (if that's what's being asked) since "committee members are presumed to serve until their successors are appointed" (p.170).

The rule Mr. Foulkes cites (from p.473) speaks of new committee members being appointed at the beginning of each administration. As some organization elect, for example, the president and secretary in even-numbered years and the vice-president and treasurer in odd-numbered years, would the new "administration" simply begin with the election of the president? And, if so, why not say so? Would the appointment of a president to fill a mid-term vacancy be considered the beginning of a new "administration", even though all other officers remain the same?

[David A Foulkes]

But there is no "automatic termination" (if that's what's being asked) since "committee members are presumed to serve until their successors are appointed" (p.170).

The rule Mr. Foulkes cites (from p.473) speaks of new committee members being appointed at the beginning of each administration. As some organization elect, for example, the president and secretary in even-numbered years and the vice-president and treasurer in odd-numbered years, would the new "administration" simply begin with the election of the president? And, if so, why not say so? Would the appointment of a president to fill a mid-term vacancy be considered the beginning of a new "administration", even though all other officers remain the same?

Regarding the "rolling terms of office" approach (odd/even year elections), page 471 lines 13-28 suggest to me that a new administration does "take over" at the annual elections meeting, and new committee appointments are made as well if the board appoints committees. If the membership appoints committees, I am uncertain. Still reading.

As for mid-term vacancies being filled, I'd say that does not establish a new administration, nor require new committee appointments.

[hmtcastle]

Regarding the "rolling terms of office" approach (odd/even year elections), page 471 lines 13-28 suggest to me that a new administration does "take over" at the annual elections meeting, and new committee appointments are made as well if the board appoints committees.

That would mean a new administration begins each year, even if the president's term has a year to go. I'm not saying that's not what the rule says (or implies), just that it seems an odd use of the term.

As for mid-term vacancies being filled, I'd say that does not establish a new administration, nor require new committee appointments.

Although I think most people would, for example, refer to the un-elected Gerald Ford becoming President as the beginning of a new administration.

[Dan Honemann]

This is the sort of meaningless discussion that usually follows a question with no facts (or, as in this case, which isn't even a question).

[David A Foulkes]

That would mean a new administration begins each year, even if the president's term has a year to go. I'm not saying that's not what the rule says (or implies), just that it seems an odd use of the term.

Although I think most people would, for example, refer to the un-elected Gerald Ford becoming President as the beginning of a new administration.

I gather then you are saying that for an organization that employs these rolling terms of office, the "administration" is keyed only on the office of president.

This is the sort of meaningless discussion that usually follows a question with no facts (or, as in this case, which isn't even a question).

Although that is often how topics start here, and the facts and question(s) come later.

[hmtcastle]

I gather then you are saying that for an organization that employs these rolling terms of office, the "administration" is keyed only on the office of president.

I'm suggesting, however meaningless some may find the discussion, that the "administration" is always keyed only on the office of president and, if that's the case, why not simply state it that way?