Every couple of years, members of the MAPOR Executive Council look over the existing MAPOR bylaws to see if any changes are necessary.  In the latest council review, we determined that a number of small changes were necessary. These changes (and their justifications) are described below.

You can see the detailed proposed bylaws changes by clicking here (Note: the track changes in the document do not show up properly on mobile browsers). You can also post any general comments you have about the changes on this post. They will appear as soon as a member of the council has had a chance to moderate them.

Justification for proposed MAPOR bylaws changes:

  • 1) During the in-person Executive Council discussion of the bylaws, two separate issues arose which would require a change. The first involved the length of the term of the Secretary-Treasurer and Associate Secretary-Treasurer. The Secretary-Treasurer position requires a good deal of knowledge about various accounts, regulations, and CVENT software. By the time she or he really gets the knowledge down, their term is up. Every time the Secretary-Treasurer’s position changes hands new forms need to be signed on our accounts and the accounts may need to be moved to a new bank. It makes more sense for the Secretary-Treasurer to serve a full two year term. That said, the Associate Secretary-Treasurer only needs a one year term to learn the ropes to take over after the Secretary-Treasurer’s term ends. There is also a concern that agreeing to run for Associate Secretary-Treasurer when it is essentially a four year commitment may discourage members from running. We are proposing changing the Secretary-Treasurer to a full two year term, but the Associate Secretary-Treasurer would only be for one year to coincide with the Secretary-Treasurer’s second year. Thus we would only elect the Associate Secretary-Treasurer every other year.


  • 2) The second issue involves the election process. It is at times difficult for the Executive Council to find two members eligible and willing to run for each office as required by the current bylaws. We agree that providing the members with a slate of at least two candidates for each office is desirable, but it may be that it will not always be possible. We are proposing new language that allows the council to put forward only one candidate for an office if two cannot be found. Additionally, we propose adding language to codify the current practice of putting out a call for nominations from the membership early enough to be considered by the council to put on the slate. Finally, we propose loosening the window to submit the slate of candidates to the membership to 10 days (60 – 70 days before the annual meeting). The current window of 5 days (60 – 65 days before the annual meeting) can be problematic, especially if council members are traveling or if it were to span a weekend.

A couple of additional items were raised by members and we have added language to address those in the attached draft of the proposed new bylaws with changes tracked.

To see and comment on the proposed bylaws changes, click here (Note: the track changes in the document do not show up properly on mobile browsers).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.