Parliamentary Procedure Q&A

Q: Our organization had its annual election on October 4, 1999. The person nominated and voted in to fill the treasurer slot resigned the night before the election officially took place, so there is now a vacancy. The president is performing the treasurer duties. Our bylaws state that vacancies shall be filled until the next election (next October) by a majority of the board. The nominating committee is trying to work with the board to nominate the same candidate the board appoints for the next coming year in order to maintain continuity. The term of office specified in our bylaws is 2 years, but doing this would change the rotation of officers - the treasurer, pres, 1st VP, corresponding sec. and 2 board positions expiring at the same time.

Last week, the recording secretary called for the president to get a parliamentary ruling concerning the length of term for the treasurer. The president came back a day later stating the ruling that the term for the treasurer next year shall be a one year term instead of two years as specified by the bylaws. Some of the board members feel this is wrong and want to call a point of order. What wording would you recommend to accomplish this properly? - C.M., Nov. 18, 1999

A: Sometimes timeliness for making a Point of Order is a consideration. For example, if a presiding officer immediately starts the voting process after a main motion is made, forgetting to open the question for debate, then if a Point of Order is to be made, it must be made at that time, not later. When the breach is in violation of the law or your bylaws, however, it is of a continuing nature, thus a Point may be made at any time.

The wording to make a Point of Order is simply, "I rise to a point of order." The chairman asks you to state your point, after which you explain why what is happening or has happened is in violation of the bylaws.

There seems to be an ambiguity in your bylaws. If they say that "vacancies shall be filled until the next election...," it is unclear whether this means the next election of any kind, including an election to a committee which might be formed next month), the next election of officers in October 2000, or the next election in October 2001 for the office that has been vacated. It seems reasonable to argue that since the bylaws elsewhere specify that the election for treasurer will be held two years hence, the ambiguity about filling vacancies should be interpreted so as not to conflict.

When an ambiguity is discovered, take it as a signal that your bylaws need amendment for clairification.

For information about principles of interpretation, see RONR pp. 581-84.

HOME QUESTIONS OTHER SITES
1