terms of office

[Guest Mary]

I asked a question the other day, but my approach was incorrect, so I'm back to ask what I think is a simpler more straightforward question on this same topic. A member or our organization wants to bring to the floor a motion which would change the term of an officer from two years to three years -- not necessarily to extend the term of the CURRENT officer, but to lengthen the term of office in general. The person currently serving in that office has served for a little over a year at this point. If a simple by-law amendment passes which changes the term to three years, does that mean the current officer's term would automatically be extended, or would the current officer's term remain at two years because he was elected under the old by-law? All we're trying to do is define a new length of term, but we also need to understand how it affects the officer currently serving. Can you provide references in RONR which cover this? I'm trying to interpret pp 578-579, and I am not being very successful.

[Rob Elsman]

I asked a question the other day, but my approach was incorrect, so I'm back to ask what I think is a simpler more straightforward question on this same topic. A member or our organization wants to bring to the floor a motion which would change the term of an officer from two years to three years -- not necessarily to extend the term of the CURRENT officer, but to lengthen the term of office in general. The person currently serving in that office has served for a little over a year at this point. If a simple by-law amendment passes which changes the term to three years, does that mean the current officer's term would automatically be extended, or would the current officer's term remain at two years because he was elected under the old by-law? All we're trying to do is define a new length of term, but we also need to understand how it affects the officer currently serving. Can you provide references in RONR which cover this? I'm trying to interpret pp 578-579, and I am not being very successful.

Unless a proviso is adopted with the amendment to the bylaws, the term of office will be extended for the currently-serving officer as soon as the amendment is adopted. See RONR (10th ed.), pp. 578, 579.

[Matt Schafer]

Unless a proviso is adopted with the amendment to the bylaws, the term of office will be extended for the currently-serving officer as soon as the amendment is adopted. See RONR (10th ed.), pp. 578, 579.

Mary, it seems that there is some confusion about this question within your organization. Other people here will be in a better position to answer in relation to what RONR says; I'm relatively inexperienced.

But how about sidestepping the entire issue and make it crystal clear exactly what you (the organization) want to do by including a proviso in the resolution to amend the bylaws? At the end of the resolution, just attach "Provided, That . . . [exactly how you want the current officer's term to be handled, whether for the original two years or to extend to three]" to the end of the resolution. Then there will be no question in anyone's mind, period. Don't leave it up to interpretation of what RONR says. Just make it explicit, then all of the confusion goes away. In addition, by doing this, you don't litter your bylaws with things that only apply for the next year or two.

For some details about how to write that resolution, you might want to look at another thread that I just started.

[Guest Mary]

Mary, it seems that there is some confusion about this question within your organization. Other people here will be in a better position to answer in relation to what RONR says; I'm relatively inexperienced.

But how about sidestepping the entire issue and make it crystal clear exactly what you (the organization) want to do by including a proviso in the resolution to amend the bylaws? At the end of the resolution, just attach "Provided, That . . . [exactly how you want the current officer's term to be handled, whether for the original two years or to extend to three]" to the end of the resolution. Then there will be no question in anyone's mind, period. Don't leave it up to interpretation of what RONR says. Just make it explicit, then all of the confusion goes away. In addition, by doing this, you don't litter your bylaws with things that only apply for the next year or two.

For some details about how to write that resolution, you might want to look at another thread that I just started.

Thank you both for your responses. They are very helpful!

[Shmuel Gerber]

Unless a proviso is adopted with the amendment to the bylaws, the term of office will be extended for the currently-serving officer as soon as the amendment is adopted. See RONR (10th ed.), pp. 578, 579.

I don't see where RONR gives an answer to this specific question one way or the other. Extending a term of office from two years to three without specifying when the first three-year term begins or when the next election under the new term-length takes place is a terrible idea.

[hmtcastle]

I don't see where RONR gives an answer to this specific question one way or the other. Extending a term of office from two years to three without specifying when the first three-year term begins or when the next election under the new term-length takes place is a terrible idea.

If the term is simply extended, it began when it began before it was extended. It was the end of the term that was altered, not the beginning.

[Shmuel Gerber]

If the term is simply extended, it began when it began before it was extended. It was the end of the term that was altered, not the beginning.

By presuming that the existing term is being extended, you are begging the question. Mary wrote, "A member or our organization wants to bring to the floor a motion which would change the term of an officer from two years to three years -- not necessarily to extend the term of the CURRENT officer, but to lengthen the term of office in general."

[hmtcastle]

By presuming that the existing term is being extended, you are begging the question. Mary wrote, "A member or our organization wants to bring to the floor a motion which would change the term of an officer from two years to three years -- not necessarily to extend the term of the CURRENT officer, but to lengthen the term of office in general."

The member in question may not want to ("necessarily" or "automatically") extend the term but, as Mr. Elsman observed, that's what will happen absent any proviso. And if the term is extended, it's extended at the end. There's no need to specify the beginning (and no way to alter the beginning of a term that's already begun).

It may be a terrible idea (though I don't think it's all that terrible) but it shouldn't leave anyone wondering when the term began and when it will end.

[Trina]

Hey Mary, in view of the discussion between Messieurs Mountcastle and Gerber, you can see why Mr. Schafer's suggestion of saying exactly what you mean is a good one . The discussion is interesting from a parliamentary point of view, but that doesn't mean your organization would benefit from similar uncertainty of interpretation internally.

[Shmuel Gerber]

The member in question may not want to ("necessarily" or "automatically") extend the term but, as Mr. Elsman observed, that's what will happen absent any proviso. And if the term is extended, it's extended at the end. There's no need to specify the beginning (and no way to alter the beginning of a term that's already begun).

It may be a terrible idea (though I don't think it's all that terrible) but it shouldn't leave anyone wondering when the term began and when it will end.

I see now that in my initial response, I also fell into the trap of referring to "extending a term of office from two years to three." The original poster asked only about a motion that changes the term of office from two years to three.

I don't know where anyone got the idea that there is a default rule as to exactly how this would affect existing officers who were elected to a different term of office -- namely, that there is an "extension" of their existing term -- but I don't see it contained in pages 578-579 of RONR.

Any interpretation of the bylaws would have to depend on the exact wording of the entire section(s) in the bylaws relating to officers and elections, as well as any provisos made at the time of their adoption or amendment.

[David A Foulkes]

I don't know where anyone got the idea that there is a default rule as to exactly how this would affect existing officers who were elected to a different term of office -- namely, that there is an "extension" of their existing term -- but I don't see it contained in pages 578-579 of RONR.

Well, p. 579 ll. 14-18 ("and if it is desired....officers already elected") would suggest that without a proviso, all officers would be affected by such a bylaw amendment.

Now, I don't know if this comes from RONR (citation unavailable) but rather a previous forum post, but I recall something on the lines of the idea that if the term were reduced from 3 years to 2 years, any officer who had been in office for at least 2 years (and a day) would be immediately "deposed", absent of course any proviso to protect them from such action. I would interpret that to work the other way, as in the current scenario, as well.