suspension of by laws?

[Guest John Chaffin]

Our bylaws state:

D. TERM OF OFFICE.

1. Elected members of the Governing Board shall serve for a period of one year and shall commence office January 1 after the Annual Meeting. They may not serve on the Governing Board more than three one-year terms in succession.

We don't have anyone to fill one of the positions unless we elect one of the current members to a fourth one-year term in succession. Is it possible to get around this by-law through a unanimous vote of the congregation? If so, what is the correct procedure? If not, how do we fill the position?

[hmtcastle]

Is it possible to get around this by-law through a unanimous vote of the congregation?

No, but with such widespread support, why not simply amend the bylaws to remove (or modify) the term limits?

[Tim Wynn]

Our bylaws state:

D. TERM OF OFFICE.

1. Elected members of the Governing Board shall serve for a period of one year and shall commence office January 1 after the Annual Meeting. They may not serve on the Governing Board more than three one-year terms in succession.

We don't have anyone to fill one of the positions unless we elect one of the current members to a fourth one-year term in succession. Is it possible to get around this by-law through a unanimous vote of the congregation?

Yes. See below.

If so, what is the correct procedure?

Move to amend the bylaws by striking out 'three' and inserting 'four' (or insert a higher number, or just strike the whole sentence). Make sure that you provide the proper notice, as required by your bylaws.

[David A Foulkes]

Our bylaws state:

D. TERM OF OFFICE.

1. Elected members of the Governing Board shall serve for a period of one year and shall commence office January 1 after the Annual Meeting. They may not serve on the Governing Board more than three one-year terms in succession.

We don't have anyone to fill one of the positions unless we elect one of the current members to a fourth one-year term in succession. Is it possible to get around this by-law through a unanimous vote of the congregation? If so, what is the correct procedure? If not, how do we fill the position?

Vote in the current member, with the proviso he must resign after 182 days (ie less than a full term), by which time you'll have located another qualified person to fill the vacancy for the rest of the year. Next year, vote the current member back in again for another three terms. And somewhere along the way, fix the bylaw.

BTW - I'm not sure this is at all on the up-and-up, but it's a loophole that you might be able to pull something out of. That loophole is that the person is not restricted from being nominated or elected or even serving (unqualified here), but serving three ... terms in succession. What constitutes a term???

[hmtcastle]

I'm not sure this is at all on the up-and-up . . .

It's not. Serving one day into a fourth term is serving "more than three one-year terms". The half-term rule only means it's less than a full fourth term, not that it's not more than three.

The rule doesn't say, "more terms than three", it's says "more than three".

But I suppose, if you can get enough people to agree with you, you can interpret any thing any way.

The proper solution is to amend the bylaws, not look for ways to circumvent them.

[Rob Elsman]

Vote in the current member, with the proviso he must resign after 182 days (ie less than a full term), by which time you'll have located another qualified person to fill the vacancy for the rest of the year. Next year, vote the current member back in again for another three terms. And somewhere along the way, fix the bylaw.

BTW - I'm not sure this is at all on the up-and-up, but it's a loophole that you might be able to pull something out of. That loophole is that the person is not restricted from being nominated or elected or even serving (unqualified here), but serving three ... terms in succession. What constitutes a term???

I disagree. The adoption of a main motion that conflicts with the bylaws is null and void from the start, RONR (10th ed.), p. 244, ll. 10, 11.

[David A Foulkes]

...

And somewhere along the way, fix the bylaw.

The proper solution is to amend the bylaws.....

Agreed.

I disagree. The adoption of a main motion that conflicts with the bylaws is null and void from the start, RONR (10th ed.), p. 244, ll. 10, 11.

If the member had resigned 182 days into his third term, would you say he had served three terms, or two? When is a term not a term?

[Rob Elsman]

Agreed.

If the member had resigned 182 days into his third term, would you say he had served three terms, or two? When is a term not a term?

A person who is invalidly elected serves no term, because he doesn't serve at all. The effect of being elected invalidly is the same as not having been elected.

[David A Foulkes]

A person who is invalidly elected serves no term, because he doesn't serve at all. The effect of being elected invalidly is the same as not having been elected.

Yes, but I'm talking about the member who had been validly elected to his third (and presumably final, for a year) "term".

[hmtcastle]

If the member had resigned 182 days into his third term, would you say he had served three terms, or two? When is a term not a term?

He clearly hasn't served three full terms and, per RONR, he is considered not to have served three terms. But the point here is that, by serving 1 day or 182 days or 183 days, he has served more than two terms and that's the controlling rule. As I read it.

[David A Foulkes]

Guest_John_Chaffin_ .... I tried.