Difference between office and/or appointment

[Guest Faye Dewey]

I am with an organization that has a standing rule that "no member shall be allowed to serve in or on more that one National appointment each year". Is there anything in Roberts Rules illustrating the difference between an office or an appointment?

I will most likely be installed as 2nd Vice next year. The question arises because I will also be editing and publishing our quarterly newsletter. This is all at the state level but our state constitution and by-laws must mirror the National and comply with Roberts Rules.

Can I serve as both 2nd vice and newsletter editor?

[hmtcastle]

Is there anything in Roberts Rules illustrating the difference between an office or an appointment?

No. You are talking about apples and oranges. An office is something you hold. An appointment is one method of obtaining an office (other methods include election and ex officio).

But you'll have to figure out what your rules mean as that's beyond the scope of this forum

[jstackpo]

There is no rule in RONR that would say no to your second question.

But your first question slightly confuses me. An "office" is a position that you, or someone holds. An "appointment" is one of the ways you can get into the or any position.

Care to try again?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I am with an organization that has a standing rule

that "no member shall be allowed to serve in or on more that one National appointment each year".

Is there anything in Roberts Rules illustrating the difference between an office or an appointment?

Yes, there is a difference.

But not always.

And context is everything.

The number of defined true officer positions will be defined in your bylaws.

The number of offices is more generic and more open. -- E.g., to sit on a committee is to hold office, but need not be an officer (note letter "R") position.

Thus, there is a distinction between holding an office vs. being a true officer of the organization.

The classic example is a board of directors. -- It is common to define a board as being comprised of half officers and half directors. -- Thus, the directors would not be defined as true officers.

Beware of your nouns and adjectives. -- Your rule and your example might be in conflict, like apples vs. oranges. -- Mr. X might be in office, but Mr. X might not be an officer.

I will most likely be installed as 2nd Vice next year.

The question arises because I will also be editing and publishing our quarterly newsletter.

This is all at the state level but our state constitution and by-laws must mirror the National and comply with Roberts Rules.

Can I serve as both 2nd vice and newsletter editor?

Are you asking a question about your National bylaws?

Are you asking a question about your State bylaws?

Are you asking a question about Robert's Rules of Order?

Under Robert's Rules, you can serve in multiple offices.

It violates no rule for one person to hold 2, 3, 4, ..., n offices simultaneously.

I won't guess how your organization(s) will interpret your National bylaws and your State bylaws.

It is possible that the two interpretations will not match.

Certainly, such a restriction was not lifted from RONR 10th edition, so no canned interpretation is possible.

[fmd2335@yahoo.com]

@JDS --I don't have the option of trying again. The standing rule is written in both National and State the same way -- "no member shall be allowed to serve in or on more than one ... appointment each year" -- so I am interpreting it as such -- If I am the 2nd vice and the President appoints me to publish the news letter, there is no conflict with our standing rule!!

@KGThe editing/publishing the news letter is NOT an office defined in our bylaws.

Thanks to all for your replies!

[hmtcastle]

@JDS --I don't have the option of trying again.

I think Mr. Stackpole was suggesting that you rephrase your question.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

.

The standing rule is written in both National and State the same way:

"no member shall be allowed to serve in or on more than one ... appointment each year"

So I am interpreting it as:

IF

I am the 2nd vice president

, AND

IF

the President appoints me to publish the news letter,

THEN

there is no conflict with our standing rule!

Editing/publishing the news letter is NOT an office defined in our bylaws.

If there is no conflict, or if you think there is no conflict, then where do you suspect (or where do those who think otherwise suspect) that the actual conflict lies?

A conflict between WHAT vs. WHAT? Between WHO vs. WHO?

Regardless, your question cannot be answered by anyone outside your organization, because you are asking, in essence

(a.) If National has a rule which reads like so, and

(b.) If State has an identical rule which reads like so, then

(c.) Does an appointment by National count toward a violation of the State rule; and

(d.) Does an appointment by State count toward the violation of the National rule?

So the official answer is, "I don't know." -- It depends on the INTERPLAY between the two rules, i.e., between the two organizations.

No page in the 700+ pages of RONR will tell you if the two rules are (a.) equal, or (b.) hierarchical.

Someone must read both documents. Someone must see the relationship between the two "standing rules".

Here is one hypothesis (out of the half-dozen I am entertaining as possible):

• Each standing rule only relates to its own organization.

• No State appointment counts toward the restriction of the National rule, and no National appointment counts toward the restriction of the State rule.

If you mix-and-match the variables, you will come up with (1 x 2 x 3) at least 6 combinations of interpretations.

Which of the six interpretations is the "correct" interpretation?

Only the two organizations know.

And they ain't talkin'.