Our property owner's association has just elected a new board of directors, and the directors are to elect the officers (president, vp, secretary, treasurer). When the new board members went to set up a time and place for their first meeting, the outgoing president, who is not on the new board, told them he would call the meeting and tell them when and where it would be. His agenda shows he intends to conduct the election of the officers for the new board. Is any of this correct? What is proper procedure for transition between outgoing and incoming boards?
The answers will depend primarily on the procedures laid out in your organization's bylaws. To the extent that the bylaws state how the transition and election should take place, those procedures must be followed. It may well be that your organization has a tradition where the outgoing president calls the new board to meet and conduct the election. If so, this tradition should not be contrary to the bylaws.
Showing posts with label Officers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Officers. Show all posts
Monday, July 5, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Duties and Term of Office
Q : At what point do some of the newly elected officers start their jobs? In particular, is the newly elected Membership Chair able to begin her job a month before the fiscal year? May she begin by sending out notices that the dues for the new year will be due within the next month, and start the cammpaign for new members, or does the present Chair make the decisions as to how the committee will operate in the new fiscal year?
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised states: "An officer-elect takes possession of his office immediately upon his election's becoming final, unless the bylaws or other rules specify a later time." Also . . . "An election to an office becomes final immediately if the candidate is present and does not decline, or if he is absent but has consented to his candidacy." (see page 430)
If your bylaws do not specify when the term of office begins, it is immediate upon acceptance of the person elected. Some organizations will specify in their bylaws when the term of office begins, such as immediately after the annual meeting, or on a specific date. If there is no special provision to do so, the term begins once the election is final.
As for taking on the duties before assuming office, this is not allowed. The current officeholder has all the rights and responsibilities connected with the office until he/she resigns or until the term of office ends. Although the newly elected Membership Chair can certainly prepare for her term in advance, she cannot take on the duties until her term begins. The current Membership Chair has no authority beyond her term and cannot make decisions as to how the committee will operate in the new term.
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised states: "An officer-elect takes possession of his office immediately upon his election's becoming final, unless the bylaws or other rules specify a later time." Also . . . "An election to an office becomes final immediately if the candidate is present and does not decline, or if he is absent but has consented to his candidacy." (see page 430)
If your bylaws do not specify when the term of office begins, it is immediate upon acceptance of the person elected. Some organizations will specify in their bylaws when the term of office begins, such as immediately after the annual meeting, or on a specific date. If there is no special provision to do so, the term begins once the election is final.
As for taking on the duties before assuming office, this is not allowed. The current officeholder has all the rights and responsibilities connected with the office until he/she resigns or until the term of office ends. Although the newly elected Membership Chair can certainly prepare for her term in advance, she cannot take on the duties until her term begins. The current Membership Chair has no authority beyond her term and cannot make decisions as to how the committee will operate in the new term.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Vote of Confidence
Q: Every year my organization has to have a "Vote Of Confidence" for its elected officers. As parliamentarian I cannot find any procedure to do this in Robert's Rules Of Order. Is there an established voting procedure for this?
You are correct that Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) does not mention such a vote. In parliamentary style governments (i.e., England and Canada), there is a vote of no confidence, which essentially dissolves parliament and forces an election. It is rarely used and rarely successful when attempted. There is no such procedure in America.
RONR does mention the motion to Censure (see page 120). A motion to Censure does not remove the subject of the motion, but serves as a formal reprimand. Censures are embarrassing to the recipient and the result goes into the minutes, to be recorded for all time in the history of the organization. A motion to Censure may be the closest thing to a vote of no confidence.
Your organization, however, uses a vote of confidence. RONR mentions a motion to "commend" as being the opposite of the motion to Censure (see page 131, line 12). Your vote of confidence may be similar to a motion to commend the elected officers.
The important question is what would be the repercussions if the organization rejected the vote of confidence? Unless your bylaws and rules have clear procedures for this, I do not think the impact would be any different than that of rejecting a motion to commend.
You are right to be questioning any type of procedure that is vague and not clearly defined. Your efforts here will prevent future problems from occurring. A rule of procedure should be adopted to define how the vote of confidence should be used and the impact of adopting or rejecting it.
You are correct that Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) does not mention such a vote. In parliamentary style governments (i.e., England and Canada), there is a vote of no confidence, which essentially dissolves parliament and forces an election. It is rarely used and rarely successful when attempted. There is no such procedure in America.
RONR does mention the motion to Censure (see page 120). A motion to Censure does not remove the subject of the motion, but serves as a formal reprimand. Censures are embarrassing to the recipient and the result goes into the minutes, to be recorded for all time in the history of the organization. A motion to Censure may be the closest thing to a vote of no confidence.
Your organization, however, uses a vote of confidence. RONR mentions a motion to "commend" as being the opposite of the motion to Censure (see page 131, line 12). Your vote of confidence may be similar to a motion to commend the elected officers.
The important question is what would be the repercussions if the organization rejected the vote of confidence? Unless your bylaws and rules have clear procedures for this, I do not think the impact would be any different than that of rejecting a motion to commend.
You are right to be questioning any type of procedure that is vague and not clearly defined. Your efforts here will prevent future problems from occurring. A rule of procedure should be adopted to define how the vote of confidence should be used and the impact of adopting or rejecting it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)