[Linux-aus] Presidential Succession

[David Newall]

James Polley wrote:
> No; if that was intended, 14(4) would refer to "a casual vacancy in 
> the ordinary member positions of the council" or somesuch.

You are confusing replacing a member of council, which the council is 
permitted to do, with filling a vacancy in the office of president, 
vice-president, secretary or treasurer, for which no provision is made 
in the constitution nor Act.

> Inside Section 15, constant reference is made to "office-bearers of 
> the association or ordinary members of the council" - yet section 15 
> is entitled "Election of members". Clearly "members" in this case 
> refers to "office-bearers of the association or ordinary members of 
> the council"

I'm not sure how section fifteen is relevant to the discussion, seeing 
how it refers to election of office bearers and members of council at 
the AGM, and not to the filling of any casual vacancy.  Rules for the 
latter are in sections 14(4) and 18.  Further, consider that "election 
of members" refers to election of ordinary members of the association to 
the council (including office-bearers.)  I suggest that the observation 
you made, namely repeated references to "office-bearers of the 
association or ordinary members of the council," indicates that where 
the constitution merely mentions "member of council", it means nothing 
more than member of council.  Please keep in mind that office-bearers 
have three, distinct roles within the association: that of office 
bearers; ordinary member; and member of council.  A reference to member 
of council means just that: not the role of member of the association 
nor of office-bearer.

Perhaps a fourth ordinary member could be appointed to fill the position 
on council that the president vacated, but not to fill the position of 
president itself.

> - if "members" meant "ordinary members" only, it would be nonsensical 
> to refer to "office-bearers of the association" in section 15.
I don't see why.  Could you explain the nonsense?


> Section 19 describes the procedure for removing "a council member" 
> from office. If your definition were to hold, it would mean that 
> Ordinary Members were subject to removal from office at the whim of a 
> majority of the membership, but Office Bearers could not be removed 
> even after a unanimous vote from the entirety of the membership.
Yes, that would seem to be true.  It may mean that the president's 
membership de jure of council can be revoked, leaving the president with 
(almost) no power.  I expect the vice president would preside if that 
occurred.  But let's keep on topic.

> Arguing that we should just limp along for now on the reduced capacity 
> because it's technically sufficient and nothing has blown up yet is 
> insane. Arguing that we should run with a reduced membership of the 
> committee just because we're not obligated to fill the vacancy makes 
> no more sense.
So appoint a fourth ordinary member.

>     other than for the public officer, thus the rules seem to require that
>     the vice-president act as president until completion of the next AGM.
>
>
> The rules require no such thing.
>
> The rules (in particular, 20(7) ) require that if the president is 
> present at a council meeting, the president be the first person 
> presented the option of presiding over the meeting. Should the 
> president be absent, or not willing preside, the vice-president is 
> next offered the chance to preside. Should the vice-president also 
> decline to preside, any other council member (subject to approval from 
> the other members) may preside.
>
> The rules do not require that the vice-president to preside over 
> anything; the rules do require that under certain circumstances the 
> vice-president be offered the chance to do certain things.
Arguing semantics achieves little.  I say act, you say option to 
preside.  We mean the same thing.  Absent a president and the rules do 
require the vice president to act in that role (i.e. be given first 
right of refusal, if you insist.)

> Please note that, if we're to accept your idea that "members" refers 
> only to the ordinary members, 20(7)(b) would have to be interpreted as 
> saying that, should both the president and vice-president be absent or 
> unwilling to preside over the meeting, the (maximum of) three ordinary 
> members should decide amongst themselves which of them was to preside 
> - the secretary and treasurer would neither get a say, nor be offered 
> the chance to to preside.
Incorrect, because office bearers are also members of council.

> If the VP is not willing or able to take on the load, it's entirely 
> appropriate that the council look to someone else to fill the vacancy.

Is this the problem?  Is the V.P. unwilling to take on the work-load of 
presiding at meetings, onerous or not?

Rather than make up rules ad hoc, the council might consult the 
associations legal representative.