At the 2010 Fall meeting, there was brief discussion about amending the procedures for “reappointing” officers. In hind sight, I can see how the current procedure might not be appropriate. :tongue: I think the prudent thing to do would be to discuss these procedures prior to the upcoming spring meeting, and amend the bylaws accordingly since officer elections will be on the agenda.
Fortunately, Ken agreed to make suggestions (albeit reluctantly :lol: ). Certainly others should feel welcome to make suggestions as well.
Please keep in mind that my intent behind this wording was to streamline the process as much as possible to save time at the meeting, and to avoid the hassle or awkwardness of having the vice-chair temporarily take over the meeting to conduct a vote when there is only one candidate. Obviously, if there is an issue with the chair or more than one candidate (or other objections), then a vote must be held. I yield to the committee’s thoughts on this one.
Here is how Section 3.04 of the Bylaws currently reads:
Section 3.04 – Officer Reappointments
Officers may be reappointed by unanimous consent. The Chairperson shall notify any officer whose term is due to expire of their pending reappointment. If the officer does not consent to a new term, then normal election procedures shall be followed to elect a replacement. If the officer consents to a new term, then the Chairperson shall notify the Committee via regular meeting announcements. Any Member may object to the unanimous consent at any time prior to reappointment. If there are no objections, then the Chairperson shall reappoint the Member to a new term of office. If any Member objects, then time shall be allowed for discussion, and a vote shall be taken. If a majority vote for reappointment is not achieved, then normal election procedures for a new officer shall commence.
Please leave your comments below. We don’t have to approve this now. I will put it on the agenda at the meeting for discussion and voting.