Election - Term of Office

[Guest Constance Strucko]

I have been referred by Alan Jennings. Here is my problem. We had elections for five officers.  Our constitution reads Term of Officers A. The term of office shall be two years. B. Officers may serve no more than two consecutive terms or until  a replacement may be secured. Lady A served two consecutive terms as second Vice President. The Nomination Committee . At the election Luncheon, Lady B was nominated from the floor.presented no opposition, so lady A was nominated to continue in the position. At the election Luncheon, Lady B was nominated from the floor.Voting was conducted by written ballot , and Lady A won with 2/3 of the vote.Who won the 2nd VP position for two years?Lady A or lady B. Can you send me the process used to draw the conclusion? I appreciate your help and your response.

       Sincerely,  Constance Strucko

   

[Josh Martin]

I have been referred by Alan Jennings. Here is my problem. We had elections for five officers.  Our constitution reads Term of Officers A. The term of office shall be two years. B. Officers may serve no more than two consecutive terms or until  a replacement may be secured. Lady A served two consecutive terms as second Vice President. The Nomination Committee . At the election Luncheon, Lady B was nominated from the floor.presented no opposition, so lady A was nominated to continue in the position. At the election Luncheon, Lady B was nominated from the floor.Voting was conducted by written ballot , and Lady A won with 2/3 of the vote.Who won the 2nd VP position for two years?Lady A or lady B. Can you send me the process used to draw the conclusion? I appreciate your help and your response.

In my opinion, neither of them won. Lady A cannot have won because, based on the facts provided, she is ineligible to serve. (The bylaws limit officers to two consecutive terms, and she has served two consecutive terms.) On the other hand, Lady B cannot have won because she did not receive the majority of the vote. There is no "runner-up" clause in RONR which permits the second-place finisher to take an office because the winner declines or is ineligible. Since 2/3 of the assembly voted for someone other than Lady B, it may well be that the assembly does not wish for her to serve in the position.

The proper course of action at this time is to hold another election. The President should be sure to inform the assembly this time that Lady A is ineligible. It may well be that Lady B wins the new election, but it is also possible that someone else will be elected. The assembly has the option to reopen nominations, and write-in votes are also in order. Balloting should be repeated until an eligible candidate receives a majority of the non-blank ballots cast.

[Richard Brown]

I have been referred by Alan Jennings.

 

Who won the 2nd VP position for two years?Lady A or lady B. Can you send me the process used to draw the conclusion? I appreciate your help and your response.

Hmmm, my good friend Alan Jennings wouldn't take a shot at this himself??    I bet he did.   Maybe he wants moral support.    Or you want a second opinion.       btw, he is a very highly respected parliamentarian.

 

I had a hard time following your sequence of events, but apparently Josh Martin did better.  If he has the sequence of events right, I concur with his analysis. 

 

I will add, though, that it seems to me that Lady A is still second vice president as you have not yet elected a replacement and your bylaws seem to say that officers serve until their replacements are selected.   However, it is ultimately up to your organization, not those of us on this message board, to interpret your bylaws.

 

Stay tuned.  There may be other opinions.

[Josh Martin]

I will add, though, that it seems to me that Lady A is still second vice president as you have not yet elected a replacement and your bylaws seem to say that officers serve until their replacements are selected.   However, it is ultimately up to your organization, not those of us on this message board, to interpret your bylaws.

Good point. Lady A would continue to serve until the election can be completed.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Good point. Lady A would continue to serve until the election can be completed.

 

It seems to run counter to sense, but I think the election was completed.  Lady A won, and she can continue to serve in office until someone else is elected -- at some fuiture election.

 

Incidentally, Guest_Constance Strucko_ asked for our "processes," and I think we presented our trains of reasoning; I'm glad she didn't ask for citations, because I'm coming up dry on that.  No wonder Alan ran the other way.

[Richard Brown]

It seems to run counter to sense, but I think the election was completed.  Lady A won, and she can continue to serve in office until someone else is elected -- at some fuiture election.

Well, Lady A got the most votes, but whether she "won" the election is a bit of a different matter.  She is certainly not eligible to serve.  As to whether she is considered validly elected and in office until someone raises a point of order that is ruled will taken by the chair or the assembly, is above my pay grade.  The chair should not have declared her elected, as she is ineligible, but if he did rule that "Lady A is elected" and there was no point of order, we have a bit of a sticky situation.  It is a continuing breach, however, so a point of order that she was not validly elected could be raised at any time by any member.   The the questions becomes, "How will the chair (and the assembly) rule on it? 

 

Alan, why did you punt???   

 

I think he's messin' with us. 

 

As to the process to end the confusion, it depends a bit on whether the chair declared that Lady A was elected.  If he didn't, well, he's right and she wasn't elected.  Neither was Lady B.  Hold another election.

 

If the chair did declare that Lady A was elected, then someone should raise a point of order that her election is invalid because she is ineligible.  The chair should rule that the point of order is well taken and that should be the end of it.  Hold another election.

 

So, guest Constance, what happened? What did the chair say after the election?  Did he declare that Lady A was elected?

[Guest Nancy N.]

.... B. Officers may serve no more than two consecutive terms or until  a replacement may be secured....

 

...  She is certainly not eligible to serve.  ..

 

Why do you figure Lady A is ineligible to serve, since no replacement has been secured, and she may serve until that happens?

[Richard Brown]

Why do you figure Lady A is ineligible to serve, since no replacement has been secured, and she may serve until that happens?

Because if she "won" the election, she would be in her third term, which is not permitted.  I see your point, but being elected to an ineligible third term is not the same thing as "holding over" until someone else is elected.  I think the clear intent of the bylaws is to prohibit someone from serving a third consecutive term.  That's my story and I've been sticking to it for , um, eleven hours.

 

But, like I said in post No 3, it's ultimately up to guest Constance's organization to interpret its own bylaws.

[Guest Nancy N.]

I don't think you see my point.  (O Richard, our first quarrel.)  If A = B, then not-A = not-B.  (I stumbled onto the word for this yesterday, and dang if I can remember it.  Kim Goldsworthy would know -- it's probably his middle name -- and GPN,  and maybe JJ though he'd misspell it.)  We know that she cannot serve more than two terms unless her successor is elected; ergo she can serve more than two terms when her successor has not been elected.  Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

(Heh.  This one was easy.  Here, keep yer $4.50.)

[Josh Martin]

Why do you figure Lady A is ineligible to serve, since no replacement has been secured, and she may serve until that happens?

My own view of it is that the "until a replacement has been secured" clause is the equivalent of the fairly standard "until their successors are elected" clause, and that the intent of the provision is to provide for continuity of service in the event that the election cannot be completed at the scheduled time.

It is ultimately up to the organization to interpret its own bylaws (see RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation), but an interpretation that the rule permits the society to get around the term limits simply by electing her to a third term seems extremely dubious, as this effectively renders the term limits meaningless.

One might argue that the intent of this wording is to provide an exception to the term limits rule if no other candidate is eligible or willing to serve. Such an exception is not uncommon. Even if one were to accept this interpretation (and I'm not sure that I do), however, it doesn't seem to fit the situation, since there was another candidate for the position.

Therefore, my own position remains that Lady A is the Second Vice President at this time, but she will remain in that office only until the election can be completed by electing an eligible candidate, and that Lady A has certainly not been elected to a third term.

As to whether she is considered validly elected and in office until someone raises a point of order that is ruled will taken by the chair or the assembly, is above my pay grade.

I would say that (assuming that the chair did, in fact, declare Lady A elected) Lady A is presumed to be validly elected until it is determined otherwise by a ruling of the chair and any subsequent appeal, but the chair and/or the assembly should determine that Lady A was not validly elected due to her being ineligible to serve a third consecutive term. Additionally, Lady A is validly in office (for now) regardless of whether she was validly elected. She continues to serve until the election can be completed.

[Guest Nancy N.]

My own view of it is that the "until a replacement has been secured" clause is the equivalent of the fairly standard "until their successors are elected" clause, and that the intent of the provision is to provide for continuity of service in the event that the election cannot be completed at the scheduled time....

 

Agreed.  That was never at issue.

 

...My own view of it is that the "until a replacement has been secured" clause is the equivalent of the fairly standard "until their successors are elected" clause, and that the intent of the provision is to provide for continuity of service in the event that the election cannot be completed at the scheduled time.... ), but an interpretation that the rule permits the society to get around the term limits simply by electing her to a third term seems extremely dubious, as this effectively renders the term limits meaningless.

One might argue that the intent of this wording is to provide an exception to the term limits rule if no other candidate is eligible or willing to serve. Such an exception is not uncommon. Even if one were to accept this interpretation (and I'm not sure that I do), however, it doesn't seem to fit the situation, since there was another candidate for the position.

 

I might be finding this compelling.  Viewed this way, what the society here is trying to do is much like the dodging and ducking of those organizations we occasionally encounter where the only willing candidate is somebody everyone else loathes.

 

Still.  I'm beginning to think maybe we've been going about this the wrong way since 1951.

[Gary c Tesser]

Agreed.  That was never at issue.

 

I might be finding this compelling.  Viewed this way, what the society here is trying to do is much like the dodging and ducking of those organizations we occasionally encounter where the only willing candidate is somebody everyone else loathes.

 

Still.  I'm beginning to think maybe we've been going about this the wrong way since 1951.

 

OK, that's me.

[Shmuel Gerber]

We know that she cannot serve more than two terms unless her successor is elected; ergo she can serve more than two terms when her successor has not been elected.

 

It seems to me that this utter nonsense, but it's so convoluted that I just can't tell. (It might be just plain nonsense.)

[SaintCad]

I don't think you see my point.  (O Richard, our first quarrel.)  If A = B, then not-A = not-B.  (I stumbled onto the word for this yesterday, and dang if I can remember it.  Kim Goldsworthy would know -- it's probably his middle name -- and GPN,  and maybe JJ though he'd misspell it.) 

Are you thinking "tautology"?  "Negation" would not be precisely correct here.

[Gödel Fan]

Viewed in terms of sets, you've described complementation.  However, the final claim reduces to two conditionals.  It says we know that >2T implies SE, and concludes that ~SE implies >2T, the word for this is "fallacy," but I also suspect that the first implication was written incorrectly.  She cannot serve more than 2 terms unless her successor has not been elected, so it should be SE implies ~>2T, from which we can conclude by contraposition that 2T implies ~SE, but I still don't see that this gets you to the desired conclusion, at least in terms of formal logic.  In terms of bylaws interpretation, where we have extra rules of inference, it might work better - if I say you don't do X unless Y, then in terms of bylaws, this implies that Y allows X, I believe.