consequences of rescinding a motion

[Guest Mary]

My organization passed a motion a couple of years ago which changed two officers' terms from three years to two years. Now there is a motion to be considered at our upcoming business meeting to rescind that motion in order to restore the term to three years. One complication is that in the meantime, we've elected officers for these positions that are serving a two-year term. If the membership votes to rescind the previous motion, what does that mean for the currently serving officers? Would rescinding invalidate their two-year term and default back to a three-year term? Or would they still be serving a two-year term since they were elected with an understanding that the term was two years -- and, if so, would it be out of order to introduce a motion to extend the current officers' term to three years? I'd appreciate any insights.

[Chris Harrison]

Terms of office are located in the bylaws. Unless you amended the bylaws to change the terms the adopted motion is null and void and there is no problem since nothing actually ever changed. If the bylaws were amended (and will be again) you all should come up with a way to address that issue (by creating a proviso in the amendment).

[Mr. J!]

My organization passed a motion a couple of years ago which changed two officers' terms from three years to two years. Now there is a motion to be considered at our upcoming business meeting to rescind that motion in order to restore the term to three years. One complication is that in the meantime, we've elected officers for these positions that are serving a two-year term. If the membership votes to rescind the previous motion, what does that mean for the currently serving officers? Would rescinding invalidate their two-year term and default back to a three-year term? Or would they still be serving a two-year term since they were elected with an understanding that the term was two years -- and, if so, would it be out of order to introduce a motion to extend the current officers' term to three years? I'd appreciate any insights.

Terms of office are frequently given in the bylaws. Is this a bylaw change?

Amendments to bylaws (or other rules) in situations like this are frequently adopted with a proviso. For example:

"PROVIDED: this rule shall take effect at the end of the current term of office..." or "...on January 1, 2011" or some other provision.

Adopt the proviso at the same time you adopt the rule change.

[Guest Mary]

Thank you for these replies. I should have been clearer and stated that we did actually amend the by-laws to change the terms of these offices. We were thinking of "rescinding something previously adopted". (Pages 294-296 in RONR.) In that case, if the recision passes, the by-laws would revert to reading "... three-year term, beginning in 1994..." or whatever the by-laws used to say. That would mean that the next regular election would occur in 2012, but the current officers' two-year terms (assuming the two-year term is still valid) would be up in 2011. Could we not make a motion to have a special election in 2011 to fill the offices until the next regular election in 2012? If so, would that have to be part of the motion to rescind, or should it be a separate motion? It seems cleaner to make it a separate motion, but perhaps that actually complicates things.

[George Mervosh]

Thank you for these replies. I should have been clearer and stated that we did actually amend the by-laws to change the terms of these offices. We were thinking of "rescinding something previously adopted". (Pages 294-296 in RONR.) In that case, if the recision passes, the by-laws would revert to reading "... three-year term, beginning in 1994..." or whatever the by-laws used to say.

I don't agree with this. Rescinding would leave no language, not old language. You'll need to re-amend (same page numbers). I don't fully understand what you're doing, but you could also adopt provisos if need be when you amend again to prevent unwanted changes from occurring too soon.

[David A Foulkes]

Mary - is it that you do want the current two-year term officers to A.) retain that term limit, or B.) do you want their term to expand to three years, should the change be adopted?

To the regulars here - if the bylaws state that terms of office shall be two years, and Mary's org adopts a bylaw amendment changing that to three years, then those currently serving when elected under the two-year bylaw would simply and automatically expand to a three-year term, correct? (absent any proviso to the contrary)

It seems that, should the answer to my question to Mary above be (B ), the simple solution is to adopt a bylaw amendment changing the term of office to three years, and done and done. Or am I missing something?

[Guest Mary]

Mary - is it that you do want the current two-year term officers to A.) retain that term limit, or B.) do you want their term to expand to three years, should the change be adopted?

To the regulars here - if the bylaws state that terms of office shall be two years, and Mary's org adopts a bylaw amendment changing that to three years, then those currently serving when elected under the two-year bylaw would simply and automatically expand to a three-year term, correct? (absent any proviso to the contrary)

It seems that, should the answer to my question to Mary above be (B ), the simple solution is to adopt a bylaw amendment changing the term of office to three years, and done and done. Or am I missing something?

The maker of the motion's answer is B. I see what you are saying -- that a re-amendment of the by-laws would effectively then make the term of the current officers three years, so that no further action would be necessary. I will be interested to hear if others concur. That is most helpful. I also appreciate the George Mervosh's reply. One of the questions I had was whether rescinding was appropriate; apparently it is not. That is most helpful, too.

[Gary c Tesser]

[snip] I will be interested to hear if others concur. [snip]

That great yawning absence of replies for a day and a half reflects general concurrence, as most regulars know what's good for them.