Order of Officer (Presidential) Succession

[Guest MR Not for Profit Guy]

BACKGROUND: I am the organization's Treasurer, duly ected as Treasurer for a term ending in 2012. Recently our President resigned. Our Vice President had resigned earlier in 2010, no one was appointed to fill this office. Our Secretary resigned earlier this Fall, an appointment was made to fill this position, This person made stand for election at out AGM in early 2011. There are four other BOD, all duly elected. Two with terms expiring in 2011, not running for re-election.

I can't find any thing with regards to our our situation in our sanctioning bodies' by-laws (they have several VPs positions in their by-laws.)

Our By-laws, note the VP assumes the responsibility of the President in the President's absence.

New Directors may be appointed by the President. If a Director is unable to serve, a new Director may be voted in on a 2/3 vote of the BOD.

QUESTION 1: According to Robert's Rule of Order, "Would Treasurer automatically assume the responsibilities of President in the absence of both President and Vice-President? and then the Secretary in the absence of the President, VP & Treasurer?"

The President only votes in case of ties.

QUESTION 2: Do I need to resign my position to assume to responsibilities of President?

QUESTION 3: Do I need to resign my position to assume to Office of President?

Mot forever, just until our AGM in late January/early February.

Advise neede.

[David A Foulkes]

The only hierarchy is the Vice-President automatically becoming the President should the latter's office become vacant. The Treasurer and Secretary do not "move up" in the food chain.

In RONR-land, when the President vacates the office (by resigning for instance) the VP, or the 1st VP if you have one, ascends to the office. If you have multiple VPs, they all move up one rung on the ladder to success, and the vacancy then occurs in the lowest numbered VP office.

You're still the Treasurer.... for now.

[hmtcastle]

According to Robert's Rule of Order, "Would Treasurer automatically assume the responsibilities of President in the absence of both President and Vice-President? and then the Secretary in the absence of the President, VP & Treasurer?"

And even if there was such a hierarchy (which, as Mr. Foulkes notes, there isn't), I wouldn't necessarily put treasurer above secretary. RONR identifies a presiding officer and a secretary as the two "essential" offices.

In any case, nothing in RONR would prevent you from serving as both president and treasurer (though your rules might or your organization may have a custom of holding only one office at a time).

[Guest MR Not for Profit Guy]

There are 6 BODs left with no majority.

How to we get anyone to assume to responsibilities of "President?" Not really practical or any where efficient to have a formal vote or take a general consensus on every issue.

Does it make a difference if the Secretary was Not elected just appointed and has assumed the duties of Secretary - Change Was Not Officially submitted to our parent organization?

[Gary Novosielski]

BACKGROUND: I am the organization's Treasurer, duly ected as Treasurer for a term ending in 2012. Recently our President resigned. Our Vice President had resigned earlier in 2010, no one was appointed to fill this office. Our Secretary resigned earlier this Fall, an appointment was made to fill this position, This person made stand for election at out AGM in early 2011. There are four other BOD, all duly elected. Two with terms expiring in 2011, not running for re-election.

I can't find any thing with regards to our our situation in our sanctioning bodies' by-laws (they have several VPs positions in their by-laws.)

Our By-laws, note the VP assumes the responsibility of the President in the President's absence.

New Directors may be appointed by the President. If a Director is unable to serve, a new Director may be voted in on a 2/3 vote of the BOD.

QUESTION 1: According to Robert's Rule of Order, "Would Treasurer automatically assume the responsibilities of President in the absence of both President and Vice-President? and then the Secretary in the absence of the President, VP & Treasurer?"

The President only votes in case of ties.

QUESTION 2: Do I need to resign my position to assume to responsibilities of President?

QUESTION 3: Do I need to resign my position to assume to Office of President?

[N]ot forever, just until our AGM in late January/early February.

Advise neede[d].

No, the Treasurer assumes neither the office nor the responsibilities of the president.

And your president is not merely "absent"; he has vacated the office. So the VP (or 1^st VP) should have become president at that moment (and any other numbered VPs take one step forward), except it sounds like you haven't got any. The main reason for having a VP is so that this situation can never occur.

It sounds like you have run out of your last vacancy-filling options. If there's nothing left in your bylaws about the situation you will probably need to arrange for a special election to fill the presidency and other vacant slots.

Until then, you can get by with a president pro-tem elected at each meeting.

[Guest MR Not for Profit Guy]

No, the Treasurer assumes neither the office nor the responsibilities of the president.

And your president is not merely "absent"; he has vacated the office. So the VP (or 1^st VP) should have become president at that moment (and any other numbered VPs take one step forward), except it sounds like you haven't got any. The main reason for having a VP is so that this situation can never occur.

It sounds like you have run out of your last vacancy-filling options. If there's nothing left in your bylaws about the situation you will probably need to arrange for a special election to fill the presidency and other vacant slots.

Until then, you can get by with a president pro-tem elected at each meeting.

[Guest MR Not for Profit Guy]

There is no provision in our by-laws for calling a "Special Election". A Special Election is Not even mentioned. Our AGM is scheduled for Jan 31st, must provide 30 days notice to the voting membership.

What about decisions typically made by the President between meetings?

[Gary Novosielski]

There are 6 BODs left with no majority.

What do you mean by "no majority"? A majority of 6 is 4.

How to we get anyone to assume to responsibilities of "President?" Not really practical or any where efficient to have a formal vote or take a general consensus on every issue.

That's what happens when you have vacancy filling rules and don't use them. You do have them in your bylaws, don't you? A president pro-tem can't help you there, because that just covers the job of presiding at meetings. It carries no administrative powers which may have been assigned to your president in the bylaws. It sounds like your president was making some sort of decisions that the board should have been making. If that's true, then making decisions in board meetings might be good practice for you.

Does it make a difference if the Secretary was Not elected just appointed and has assumed the duties of Secretary - Change Was Not Officially submitted to our parent organization?

Well, it might mean that you don't in fact have a secretary, just someone who is now improperly doing the job. You can elect a secretary pro-tem to take minutes, but just as above, none of the administrative duties of secretary go with that job.

Almost all of these questions should be answered in your bylaws. If they're not, then you have somewhat of an ineffective document. Once you get your officers' roster straight, the bylaws should be your next project.

[Guest MR Not for Profit Guy]

Yes we were planning to adjust our by-laws at the AGM. Just perhaps not a total overhaul as you are suggesting. Perhaps we need to.

President was invested with those powers outside of Meetings.

Remaining BODs are/may be split 3-3: bloc voting = deadlock. =(

Thank you for the advise.

[Gary Novosielski]

President was invested with those powers outside of Meetings.

Remaining BODs are/may be split 3-3: bloc voting = deadlock. =(

Well, that can happen with any number of Directors. The idea that boards must have an odd number is a myth. Anyone might be absent or choose to abstain on any vote, and that is not a "deadlock". Some boards of five or six function perfectly well for years. In the event of a tie vote, a motion is simply defeated. There is no deadlock condition implied by this any more than a 1-5 vote is a deadlock.

You may be surprised at how quickly they learn the art of compromise when the situation forces the issue.