elected to two positions

[Guest Daniel]

If I am elected to 2 positions and must resign from one, does the next person on the ballot with the most votes take my place?

[Robert B Fish]

No. If you are elected to two positions and decline one right away, the result is an incomplete election for that position and the assembly must revote.

The next vote-getter does not automatically take the position because he/she received less than a majority of the votes. It could be appropriate to reopen the nominations before revoting, also.

-Bob

[Rev Ed]

And unless the By-laws state otherwise, you can hold more than one office.

[Gary Novosielski]

And unless the By-laws state otherwise, you can hold more than one office.

Then could you explain why, in the discussion on this point, the authors note that it is common for organizations to prohibit the practice, and "some" of them go so far as to include the prohibition in their bylaws?

It would seem implicit that the practice can be prohibited by rule or custom even in the absence of a bylaws provision.

(not to mention by common sense)

[hmtcastle]

It would seem implicit that the practice can be prohibited by rule or custom even in the absence of a bylaws provision.

Custom may be persuasive but I don't think it's prohibitive.

The custom of U.S. Presidents serving no more than two terms was extraordinarily persuasive for a century and a half but it did not prohibit FDR from being elected to a third and fourth term.

In the absence of a written rule, the way to maintain a custom is to continue it. Voluntarily. If a candidate is elected to two offices and chooses to serve in both, I suspect the assembly will be motivated to amend the bylaws. Just as the citizens of the U.S. were motivated to adopt the 22nd Amendment.

[Gary Novosielski]

Custom may be persuasive but I don't think it's prohibitive.

The custom of U.S. Presidents serving no more than two terms was extraordinarily persuasive for a century and a half but it did not prohibit FDR from being elected to a third and fourth term.

In the absence of a written rule, the way to maintain a custom is to continue it. Voluntarily. If a candidate is elected to two offices and chooses to serve in both, I suspect the assembly will be motivated to amend the bylaws. Just as the citizens of the U.S. were motivated to adopt the 22nd Amendment.

That's a valid point, and customs do change and are open to challenge when they do. But the OP gave no indication that the rule, or whatever it was, was in dispute. Rather, the question had to do with how to handle the outcome.

I just think that the value of the free advice that is commonly offered here, encouraging questioners to discard what their common sense tells them in order to try gain as many simultaneous offices as they can get their hands on, especially in light of the the lukewarm, even cool, reception that the practice receives in the pages of the Work, should be counted as "worth every penny". [/rant]

Or not.

[hmtcastle]

I just think that the value of the free advice that is commonly offered here, encouraging questioners to discard what their common sense tells them in order to try gain as many simultaneous offices as they can get their hands on, especially in light of the the lukewarm, even cool, reception that the practice receives in the pages of the Work, should be counted as "worth every penny".

Well, I don't think anyone is encouraging questioners to discard common sense and I, for one, might have argued against a third term for FDR. But what I could not have done was point to a rule that said he couldn't do it.

Instead of envisioning a power-grabbing tyrant trying to get "as many simultaneous offices as they can get their hands on", let's instead imagine an extremely capable individual who gets elected to the offices of secretary and treasurer, in an organization whose custom has been for no one to hold more than one office. I would think the members might be glad there's no written prohibition and would be more than happy to let their custom fall to the ground.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, I don't think anyone is encouraging questioners to discard common sense and I, for one, might have argued against a third term for FDR. But what I could not have done was point to a rule that said he couldn't do it.

Instead of envisioning a power-grabbing tyrant trying to get "as many simultaneous offices as they can get their hands on", let's instead imagine an extremely capable individual who gets elected to the offices of secretary and treasurer, in an organization whose custom has been for no one to hold more than one office. I would think the members might be glad there's no written prohibition and would be more than happy to let their custom fall to the ground.

I think they would be happy, and I would not deprive them of that right.

But it does make me uneasy to advise such actions glibly. We need not look beyond the questions in this forum to see that the problems caused by power-grabbing tyrants seem to outnumber those of the highly capable seeking only the clear path to doing good.

But maybe not. If my impression on that is incorrect, you may call me a cynic.*

I suspect that many societies fail to include this prohibition in their bylaws (even as a suspendable one) only because it never occurs to them that it isn't already prohibited by common parliamentary law.

__________

* cynic n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision. --Ambrose Bierce, Devil's Dictionary

[hmtcastle]

But it does make me uneasy to advise such actions glibly.

Well, again, I don't see the glibness. And I'm not sure such actions are being advised. We're merely pointing out that, as we like to say, no rule in RONR prohibits it (contrary to what you might describe as popular belief).

I suppose we view custom from our own perspectives. You may view it as a common-sense reliance on well-established traditions. I think I tend to see it as a blind obedience to the status quo. But that may be from having too many jobs where any suggestion of change was met with, "But we've always done it this way".

[Josh Martin]

I think they would be happy, and I would not deprive them of that right.

But it does make me uneasy to advise such actions glibly. We need not look beyond the questions in this forum to see that the problems caused by power-grabbing tyrants seem to outnumber those of the highly capable seeking only the clear path to doing good.

So instead, we should have let the poster continue to believe that he must resign from one position, even though this may not be the case?

[Gary Novosielski]

So instead, we should have let the poster continue to believe that he must resign from one position, even though this may not be the case?

No, I just think it would have been better to more accurately reflect what RONR says, which is a much more cautious view of the practice than simply: Go for it!

In this particular case, the statement was made by Rev. Ed. that the prohibition, if any, must be in the bylaws. Not only is this nowhere to be found in the Work, it is directly contradicted.

So, instead, should we have let the poster continue to believe that?

[Josh Martin]

In this particular case, the statement was made by Rev. Ed. that the prohibition, if any, must be in the bylaws. Not only is this nowhere to be found in the Work, it is directly contradicted.

So, instead, should we have let the poster continue to believe that?

No, but from your continuing debate with Mr. Mountcastle I was becoming unclear exactly where you were going with this.

Personally, I'm still not entirely clear on whether RONR, 10th ed., pg. 425, line 34 - pg. 426, line 1 should be interpreted to mean that a custom, standing rule, or special rule of order is sufficient to prevent someone from holding more than one office, or if it is simply a statement of fact, but the former is certainly one possible interpretation. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "a direct contradiction."

[hmtcastle]

In this particular case, the statement was made by Rev. Ed. that the prohibition, if any, must be in the bylaws. Not only is this nowhere to be found in the Work, it is directly contradicted.

The reason it must be in the bylaws is precisely because it's nowhere to be found in the Work.

[Gary Novosielski]

The reason it must be in the bylaws is precisely because it's nowhere to be found in the Work.

What is found in the work is the statement: "... it is understood in most societies that a member can serve in only one such capacity at a time, and sometimes the bylaws so provide." (My emphasis.)

So there must be a way (by rule or custom) for the prohibition to exist and endure without it being so provided in the bylaws. What I'm having trouble understanding is the reluctance to mention to questioners what RONR takes the trouble to publish for its readers: the fact that the practice, far from being generally acceptable, is not allowed at all in the majority of actual existing societies.

And by the way, I have no objection to also pointing out that "strictly speaking, there is no prohibition against" it. But I do think that someone reading all the posts here might come away with only "there is no prohibition" but not even the qualifier "strictly speaking", nor the knowledge that, in most societies, the practice actually is prohibited, and that it does not necessarily take a bylaws provision to do it.

I understand this is a personal pet peeve of mine and, as such, is more my problem than anyone's. And I do respect the diversity of opinions on the issue. Indeed if I were asked for my opinion, rather than for RONR's, I would argue for as strong an advisory against one person holding multiple offices as RONR already thoughtfully provides against multiple people co-holding one office. I believe both practices are ill-advised. But I'm not suggesting that my opinion should prevail, only that the one in RONR should not be unduly abbreviated.

In short, I have no problem with the idea as it is expressed on p. 425. But I think we would do a greater service to our Guest_s to render it faithfully and completely.

I hope I have made myself understood and I'll try not to belabor the point any further.

[hmtcastle]

I hope I have made myself understood and I'll try not to belabor the point any further.

Your position is understood and appreciated. The next time I have the opportunity, I'll try not to make it sound like RONR has no problem with one member holding more than one office (even though I don't think it does). But when the OP says something like, "there's nothing in our bylaws about holding more than one office", I'm reluctant to say, "there doesn't have to be; if no one has ever held two offices before, you shouldn't start now".

[Rev Ed]

I suspect that many societies fail to include this prohibition in their bylaws (even as a suspendable one) only because it never occurs to them that it isn't already prohibited by common parliamentary law.

Well, that's not our concern. What they "believe", what is "common practise", or what is "generally done" does not mean that a person cannot hold more than one office at a time unless and only unless the rules/by-laws of the organization says so.

[Josh Martin]

And unless the By-laws state otherwise, you can hold more than one office.

Well, that's not our concern. What they "believe", what is "common practise", or what is "generally done" does not mean that a person cannot hold more than one office at a time unless and only unless the rules/by-laws of the organization says so.

Is this simply an incidental change in wording or have you changed your position on this topic?

[Rev Ed]

Incidental - it has to be written rule or more properly in the by-law governing the election and/or qualifications to serve on the Board.

[Gary Novosielski]

Incidental - it has to be written rule or more properly in the by-law governing the election and/or qualifications to serve on the Board.

So when RONR says most societies don't allow it, and only some of them put the prohibition in writing, you are suggesting that RONR is wrong?

[Josh Martin]

Incidental - it has to be written rule or more properly in the by-law governing the election and/or qualifications to serve on the Board.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the concept of "more properly," as it seems to me that something is either proper or it isn't, but okay. Perhaps you mean to say that it would be more advisable to place such a rule in the Bylaws, as the rule would then be more resistant to change.

Let me ask the question more directly - in your opinion, what is the minimum level at which a prohibition against serving in more than one office becomes enforceable - custom, standing rule, special rule of order, or a rule in the Bylaws?

So when RONR says most societies don't allow it, and only some of them put the prohibition in writing, you are suggesting that RONR is wrong?

What RONR specifically says on this matter is "Although, strictly speaking, there is no prohibition against a person's holding more than one office, it is understood in most societies that a member can serve in only one such capacity at a time, and sometimes the bylaws so provide." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 425, line 34 - pg. 426, line 1) It seems to me there are two reasonable interpretations of this sentence.

• There is no prohibition against holding more than one office, but it is frowned upon in many societies. Sometimes, societies place a rule in the Bylaws to prohibit this practice. (In other words, the line about the "understanding" is simply a statement of fact and is not enforceable.)
• There is no prohibition against holding more than one office, but some societies place such a prohibition. Sometimes, this prohibition is placed on the Bylaws, but some undefined degree of lower-level prohibitions are permissible (anywhere from special rules of order down to custom, depending on interpretation). (In other words, the line about the "understanding" is a rule, not merely a statement of fact, and is enforceable.)

I personally favor the former interpretation, but you have made it clear that you favor an extreme variety of the latter interpretation, which would allow even for a custom on this matter to be enforceable (subject to the usual rules regarding customs which do not conflict with written rules). I concede that this is one possible interpretation of the citation, but I do not think it is the only reasonable interpretation.

[Dan Honemann]

I'm not entirely sure I understand the concept of "more properly," as it seems to me that something is either proper or it isn't, but okay. Perhaps you mean to say that it would be more advisable to place such a rule in the Bylaws, as the rule would then be more resistant to change.

Let me ask the question more directly - in your opinion, what is the minimum level at which a prohibition against serving in more than one office becomes enforceable - custom, standing rule, special rule of order, or a rule in the Bylaws?

What RONR specifically says on this matter is "Although, strictly speaking, there is no prohibition against a person's holding more than one office, it is understood in most societies that a member can serve in only one such capacity at a time, and sometimes the bylaws so provide." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 425, line 34 - pg. 426, line 1) It seems to me there are two reasonable interpretations of this sentence.

• There is no prohibition against holding more than one office, but it is frowned upon in many societies. Sometimes, societies place a rule in the Bylaws to prohibit this practice. (In other words, the line about the "understanding" is simply a statement of fact and is not enforceable.)
• There is no prohibition against holding more than one office, but some societies place such a prohibition. Sometimes, this prohibition is placed on the Bylaws, but some undefined degree of lower-level prohibitions are permissible (anywhere from special rules of order down to custom, depending on interpretation). (In other words, the line about the "understanding" is a rule, not merely a statement of fact, and is enforceable.)

I personally favor the former interpretation, but you have made it clear that you favor an extreme variety of the latter interpretation, which would allow even for a custom on this matter to be enforceable (subject to the usual rules regarding customs which do not conflict with written rules). I concede that this is one possible interpretation of the citation, but I do not think it is the only reasonable interpretation.

I think you've got this right. Nothing short of a bylaw provision can prohibit the assembly from electing a person to more than one office, if that's what the assembly wants to do.