voting by Ex-officio member

[Guest David M]

On our Committee, we have 12 Ex-officio members which the Constitution states serve a 2 year term with full voting privilages. Tonight we will elect new Ex-offico members. Our question is are outgoing ex-officio members allowed to vote for the incoming ex-officio members or does their term expire before the election of new Ex-officio members? Does the Chair have to declare these seats vacant before the new election is held?

[Tim Wynn]

On our Committee, we have 12 Ex-officio members which the Constitution states serve a 2 year term with full voting privilages. Tonight we will elect new Ex-offico members. Our question is are outgoing ex-officio members allowed to vote for the incoming ex-officio members

It's uncommon for a committee to elect its own members. If that's the case, though, members have a right to vote. Forget "incoming" and "outgoing," there are only members and nonmembers.

or does their term expire before the election of new Ex-officio members?

Your bylaws should tell you when the terms end.

Does the Chair have to declare these seats vacant before the new election is held?

No.

[hmtcastle]

Our question is are outgoing ex-officio members allowed to vote for the incoming ex-officio members or does their term expire before the election of new Ex-officio members? Does the Chair have to declare these seats vacant before the new election is held?

There is typically no vacancy in an office during an election, so the current officers (members?) remain officers (members?) until the new officers (members?) are elected.

And see FAQ #2 as your use of the term "ex-officio" seems a bit unusual.

[Gary Novosielski]

On our Committee, we have 12 Ex-officio members which the Constitution states serve a 2 year term with full voting privilages. Tonight we will elect new Ex-offico members. Our question is are outgoing ex-officio members allowed to vote for the incoming ex-officio members or does their term expire before the election of new Ex-officio members? Does the Chair have to declare these seats vacant before the new election is held?

If this is normal time for their term to end, then they would serve until their successors are elected. Therefore, they could vote for their successors.

[Tim Wynn]

If this is normal time for their term to end, then they would serve until their successors are elected. Therefore, they could vote for their successors.

... if the bylaws say so, which they should. However, if they indicate a date that the term ends, without the recommended provision that they serve "until their successors are elected," it's possible that a vacancy could exist.

[Gary Novosielski]

... if the bylaws say so, which they should. However, if they indicate a date that the term ends, without the recommended provision that they serve "until their successors are elected," it's possible that a vacancy could exist.

Yeah, but here's my problem: What are "ex-officio" members doing in an election to begin with? Ex-officio members, by definition, are not voted in. They are automatically members because of some other office out of which their membership arises (that's what ex officio means).

So what office do these people hold, that makes them ex-officio members? Or did somebody with no knowledge of what it means just create these post out of ignorance?

[Tim Wynn]

Yeah, but here's my problem: What are "ex-officio" members doing in an election to begin with? Ex-officio members, by definition, are not voted in. They are automatically members because of some other office out of which their membership arises (that's what ex officio means).

So what office do these people hold, that makes them ex-officio members? Or did somebody with no knowledge of what it means just create these post out of ignorance?

I'm operating under this assumption.

[Guest David M]

Tim- you have assumed correctly. When infact these members should be considered Appointed At-large members, not Ex-officios because they do NOT hold any other elected positions.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

On our Committee, we have 12 Ex-officio members which the Constitution states serve a 2 year term with full voting privilages.

Tonight we will elect new Ex-offico members.

Our question is are outgoing ex-officio members allowed to vote for the incoming ex-officio members or does their term expire before the election of new Ex-officio members?

Does the Chair have to declare these seats vacant before the new election is held?

Wait a minute.

Under the typical case for ex officio status, there cannot be a defined term of office, because the status of being ex officio implies that there is a second office involved, which may have its own defined term of office.

For example, a Treasurer might be elected to serve January 1st to December 31st, as an officer.

Your TERM OF OFFICE for this particular ex officio member on this "committee" might be defined on start/end dates other than January to December.

And if the two defined TERMS OF OFFICE do not match, then the concept of sitting in an ex officio status is made either meaningless or impossible, since the election of a new Treasurer will halt one TERM OF OFFICE in mid-term, due to the imperfect overlap of the two TERMS OF OFFICE.

Review:

The term "ex officio" implies that there is no term of office for your "committee", since the start/end date is pre-fixed by the very act of "holding that (second) office."

Whoever is in that second office (which triggers the status of "ex officio") will be AUTOMATICALLY added/subtracted INSTANTLY to your "committee" upon an election for that given position.

Thus, it would be unexpected and illogical to have a term of office for a COMMITTEE which is already 100% dependent on the term of office of another position.

That is why I suspect that your use of the term "ex officio" is not a match for how that term is used within Robert's Rules of Order.

And that is why I don't think a canned answer from the 700+ pages of RONR will apply.

[Guest David M.]

Wait a minute.

Under the typical case for ex officio status, there cannot be a defined term of office, because the status of being ex officio implies that there is a second office involved, which may have its own defined term of office.

For example, a Treasurer might be elected to serve January 1st to December 31st, as an officer.

Your TERM OF OFFICE for this particular ex officio member on this "committee" might be defined on start/end dates other than January to December.

And if the two defined TERMS OF OFFICE do not match, then the concept of sitting in an ex officio status is made either meaningless or impossible, since the election of a new Treasurer will halt one TERM OF OFFICE in mid-term, due to the imperfect overlap of the two TERMS OF OFFICE.

Review:

The term "ex officio" implies that there is no term of office for your "committee", since the start/end date is pre-fixed by the very act of "holding that (second) office."

Whoever is in that second office (which triggers the status of "ex officio") will be AUTOMATICALLY added/subtracted INSTANTLY to your "committee" upon an election for that given position.

Thus, it would be unexpected and illogical to have a term of office for a COMMITTEE which is already 100% dependent on the term of office of another position.

That is why I suspect that your use of the term "ex officio" is not a match for how that term is used within Robert's Rules of Order.

And that is why I don't think a canned answer from the 700+ pages of RONR will apply.

Agreed- Let's call these members "At-large committee members". We incorrectly named them Ex-officio and will change their title.

[hmtcastle]

Let's call these members "At-large committee members".

Why not just call them committee members? Or, better yet, just members.