Guest Christopher Posted January 10, 2011 at 06:19 AM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 06:19 AM Our general election is tomorrow for 5 positions on our board. There is one member, who currently holds a board position, who would like to run for a different position that is open. My questions are: is this allowed? What is the procedure? Does he have to relinquish his current position before or after possibly being voted into the other position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted January 10, 2011 at 06:27 AM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 06:27 AM Our general election is tomorrow for 5 positions on our board. There is one member, who currently holds a board position, who would like to run for a different position that is open. My questions are: is this allowed? Nothing in RONR prohibits it.What is the procedure? Probably no different then the procedure for any other member. You will have to look to your bylaws to determine what that procedure is.Does he have to relinquish his current position before or after possibly being voted into the other position.Nothing in RONR would require it. However, if the bylaws state that a member can only hold one office at a time he would have to choose between the two. Also, if the organization has a custom that a member can only hold one office at a time that custom would have to be adhered to unless the assembly decides to do otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM if the organization has a custom that a member can only hold one office at a time that custom would have to be adhered to unless the assembly decides to do otherwise.But by doing otherwise (i.e. by electing one person to two offices), they're not adhering to the custom so there's no sense in which the custom has to be adhered to. In other words, there needn't be a separate decision to do otherwise, they can simply do otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 10, 2011 at 09:23 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 09:23 PM But by doing otherwise (i.e. by electing one person to two offices), they're not adhering to the custom so there's no sense in which the custom has to be adhered to. In other words, there needn't be a separate decision to do otherwise, they can simply do otherwise.You mean by accident, as opposed to on purpose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 10, 2011 at 09:45 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 09:45 PM You mean by accident, as opposed to on purpose?Well, electing the same person to two offices might have been unintentional, and even undesirable, but if he accepts both offices he'll at worst incur the wrath of the membership as they shout, "But no one has ever held two offices before!", prompting them to amend the bylaws so it never happens again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.