As long as the full membership votes on the change, I don't see a problem - ethical, moral, or procedural.
While I suppose it could be a group of power-hungry officers in charge, my guess would be that the idea evolved out of practical consideration.
Put yourself in their shoes - if things are running smoothly and you think this would be a good idea, when would YOU want to implement it? It seems the current board is willing to serve a two year term. But if you implement this for next year, then those interested would have to run again for a two year term, which means they are committing (with this year) to three years - at least mentally. That's a lot.
In my mind, it should have been presented to the membership and those members should have discussed it and offered suggestions or changes if they didn't want the current board to just roll over. They could have accepted the idea contingent on elections still being held this year to fill the remaining 1 year of the 2 year term.
That possibility could still be suggested.
Note - when your bylaws get updated, make sure you don't leave loopholes. You want two year terms, so if someone is elected to fill an unexpected vacancy - they fill the remainder of the term, not two years from the point elected/appointed.
There's obvious ETHICAL and MORAL questions. Why would any board be so compelled to vote a RETRO-ACTIVE TWO-YEAR term and deny the membership a chance to weigh in on the term limit and if approved select a board with the two-year term? Stability is a nice concept, but you can't guarantee stability with a two-year term... and the obvious answer is that if the board was doing a fine job than certainly they would be re-elected. Where does the board draw the line... what's next ... voting yourself a five-year term, a never ending term, upcapped spending limits without any input from the membership? I recommend a full out BOYCOTT of all PTO fundraising events.... your songbird will not be singing so sweet when the food is all gone! In cases like this doesn't the membership have the ability to remove board members?
From reading all the above e-mails, it really clear that eveyone knows everyone. In the end, it really will be left up to the current president. How is that person going to handle it, will he/she be fair and give it to the general, or was there pass by-laws that were made with out the general votes. I would like to know when its all done what happen. I would get with the current president and talk to he/she. Get there feel, as a president in a rather small school, people always ask me questions, many times people think that the president will go along with everything the board says, ask her how she feels one on one and them see what happens at the next general meeting. Will they bring it up or will they just say its our way or no way. Make things work for everyone.
I'd like to clarify that the vote has not yet taken place so it's impossible that "members that never showed up came to vote it down". What I do know is that people feel very strongly about this issue. There have been several concerns raised about the ethics of the board and members are concerned that these people are just voting themselves into office for a second term. An excellent example was given: The President of the U.S. is elected to a four-year term. He cannot take it upon himself to decide that he and his cabinet are doing such a good job that they will just change the law and remain in office for 4 more years. He needs to run for re-election. That is all that we are asking: Run for re-election with full disclosure that the term is a two year term.
It may be "allowed" but it most definitely does not seem ethical. It seems like an abuse of power. Why not just run for re-election and run for a two-year term up front? If the officers are doing a good job, they would surely be re-elected and then there would be no question of propriety.
(P.S.--I just discovered this site and love it!)
Ethical? Probably not - most by laws or rules say that changes to the articles of organization beed to be put before the membership for approval. However if your by laws say the board may make ammendments without that referal then there is nothing wrong with what they have done. You need to read your by laws and see what they say the process is for ammending.
