Guest clipper Posted September 7, 2010 at 10:38 PM Report Share Posted September 7, 2010 at 10:38 PM Our by-laws state "The term of office for the President, et al... shall be one (1) year. These officers may serve no more than two consecutive terms.The rub is that we have always had a problem getting members to run for board seats. So it has become necessary to appoint someone after regular elections are over. Our present President was appointed the first term, elected the second year, and now wishes to be elected again. Precedence has been set that a president has been elected two times successively and then appointed president several more times. We now have members expressing the opinion that three (3) terms, under any circumstances is unacceptable. Some direction please, Clipper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dan Posted September 7, 2010 at 11:23 PM Report Share Posted September 7, 2010 at 11:23 PM No "directions" but an opinion. if they bylaws say two consecutive terms is the limit, then it doesn;t matter whether that officer is "elected" or appointed. Why don;t you just change the bylaws to remove the restriction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest clipper Posted September 7, 2010 at 11:46 PM Report Share Posted September 7, 2010 at 11:46 PM Unfortunatly that is how many of us see it, extenuating circumstances are hell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted September 8, 2010 at 12:18 PM Report Share Posted September 8, 2010 at 12:18 PM The rub is that we have always had a problem getting members to run for board seats. So it has become necessary to appoint someone after regular elections are over.You can't simply appoint someone because the election is "incomplete". The power to appoint must be in the bylaws and typically applies only to mid-term vacancies (due, for example to a resignation or death). But if the person you "appoint" (however improperly) is willing to serve, why not simply elect him?You might also address the fundamental problem of filling board seats. Perhaps the board is too large. Perhaps you don't need a board at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted September 10, 2010 at 01:02 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 at 01:02 PM Our by-laws state "The term of office for the President, et al... shall be one (1) year. These officers may serve no more than two consecutive terms.The rub is that we have always had a problem getting members to run for board seats. So it has become necessary to appoint someone after regular elections are over. Our present President was appointed the first term, elected the second year, and now wishes to be elected again. Precedence has been set that a president has been elected two times successively and then appointed president several more times. We now have members expressing the opinion that three (3) terms, under any circumstances is unacceptable. Some direction please, ClipperAs Mr. Mountcastle pointed out, appointing someone when you had an incomplete election may not have been proper in the first place... unless your bylaws specify an appointment process under those circumstances.One detail that may (or may not) help is that RONR specifies that serving more than half a term counts as a term, the implication being that serving less than half doesn't. (RONR p. 432 ll. 20-22)With regard to the 'precedence' of what was done in the case of a previous president of the organization, the precedent has no weight if it is found to be in conflict with your written rules. (see RONR p. 17 ll. 4-18 for a discussion of 'custom', and how custom falls to the ground if a conflict with the written rules of the organization, or with its parliamentary authority, is brought to light via a point of order). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.