Watson Posted June 24, 2011 at 10:36 PM Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 at 10:36 PM RONR does not absolutely prohibit one person from being elected to more than one office [p. 425, l. 33-35 and p. 436, l. 1-2] and our bylaws are silent on this matter. (There is one person who has held two offices for the past two years.) If a member objects to anyone holding plural offices, would the best course of action be to make a motion and let the assembly decide? Would such a motion require a majority vote, or should it be treated as a motion to rescind an established custom, thereby requiring a 2/3 vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted June 24, 2011 at 11:51 PM Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 at 11:51 PM RONR does not absolutely prohibit one person from being elected to more than one office [p. 425, l. 33-35 and p. 436, l. 1-2] and our bylaws are silent on this matter. (There is one person who has held two offices for the past two years.) If a member objects to anyone holding plural offices, would the best course of action be to make a motion and let the assembly decide? Would such a motion require a majority vote, or should it be treated as a motion to rescind an established custom, thereby requiring a 2/3 vote?The proper course is to amend the bylaws. Check the bylaws and follow the procedures for amendments given there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted June 25, 2011 at 12:48 AM Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 at 12:48 AM The proper course is to amend the bylaws. Check the bylaws and follow the procedures for amendments given there.Rob, do you mean the bylaws should be changed to address the matter, or are you saying that if the group wants to decide the matter one way or another it should be done via a bylaw change?The reason I ask is my 1st thought was that one person objecting to who holds what office should be treated as nothing more than a member expressing an opinion. Don't like the election results? Get people to vote another way next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted June 25, 2011 at 01:00 AM Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 at 01:00 AM Rob, do you mean the bylaws should be changed to address the matter, or are you saying that if the group wants to decide the matter one way or another it should be done via a bylaw change?The reason I ask is my 1st thought was that one person objecting to who holds what office should be treated as nothing more than a member expressing an opinion. Don't like the election results? Get people to vote another way next time.I'm really intending to say no more than what is said in RONR (10th ed.), p. 425, l. 33, through p. 426, l. 2. Apparently, there is a member in this organization who finds it objectionable that one person serves in two offices simultaneously. His proper course of action is to make a motion to amend the bylaws to proscribe it. What the outcome of such a motion might be depends on how the deliberative process plays out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanh49 Posted June 25, 2011 at 03:23 AM Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 at 03:23 AM I'm really intending to say no more than what is said in RONR (10th ed.), p. 425, l. 33, through p. 426, l. 2. Apparently, there is a member in this organization who finds it objectionable that one person serves in two offices simultaneously. His proper course of action is to make a motion to amend the bylaws to proscribe it. What the outcome of such a motion might be depends on how the deliberative process plays out. 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 [page 426] in only one such capacity at a time, and sometimes the bylaws so provide. In such a case, if the person elected to two or more offices is present, he can choose which of the offices he will accept. If he is absent, the assembly should decide by vote the office to be assigned to him, and then should elect person(s) to fill the other office(s).I don't see anything in the paragraph above that says a prohibition against holding more than one office at time has to be in the bylaws note the underlined part but I do think that in the absence of a bylaw or special rule of order any objection would have to be made at the time of the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 25, 2011 at 03:57 AM Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 at 03:57 AM 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 [page 426] in only one such capacity at a time, and sometimes the bylaws so provide. In such a case, if the person elected to two or more offices is present, he can choose which of the offices he will accept. If he is absent, the assembly should decide by vote the office to be assigned to him, and then should elect person(s) to fill the other office(s).I don't see anything in the paragraph above that says a prohibition against holding more than one office at time has to be in the bylaws note the underlined part but I do think that in the absence of a bylaw or special rule of order any objection would have to be made at the time of the election.So, could a rule (standing or special) be adopted stating, "No one over 50 years of age shall be elected president?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted June 25, 2011 at 12:19 PM Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 at 12:19 PM So, could a rule (standing or special) be adopted stating, "No one over 50 years of age shall be elected president?"Or under 25 years of age? Or that you can't have a mustache, or must have a hoo-hah, or no more than one of your ears pierced? I smell worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted June 25, 2011 at 12:50 PM Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 at 12:50 PM I'm really intending to say no more than what is said in RONR (10th ed.), p. 425, l. 33, through p. 426, l. 2. Apparently, there is a member in this organization who finds it objectionable that one person serves in two offices simultaneously. His proper course of action is to make a motion to amend the bylaws to proscribe it. What the outcome of such a motion might be depends on how the deliberative process plays out.OK, gotcha. The member who doesn't like it should go that route. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted June 25, 2011 at 04:29 PM Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 at 04:29 PM 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 [page 426] in only one such capacity at a time, and sometimes the bylaws so provide. In such a case, if the person elected to two or more offices is present, he can choose which of the offices he will accept. If he is absent, the assembly should decide by vote the office to be assigned to him, and then should elect person(s) to fill the other office(s).I don't see anything in the paragraph above that says a prohibition against holding more than one office at time has to be in the bylaws note the underlined part but I do think that in the absence of a bylaw or special rule of order any objection would have to be made at the time of the election.Since the original poster's organization seems to have a history of members' serving in multiple offices simultaneously, I think the understanding spoken of in the cited text doesn't apply in this case. Given the history, I think an objection, at this point, would be unlikely to succeed (if I were in the chair, at least). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted June 27, 2011 at 04:44 AM Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 at 04:44 AM RONR does not absolutely prohibit one person from being elected to more than one office [p. 425, l. 33-35 and p. 436, l. 1-2] and our bylaws are silent on this matter. (There is one person who has held two offices for the past two years.) If a member objects to anyone holding plural offices, would the best course of action be to make a motion and let the assembly decide? Would such a motion require a majority vote, or should it be treated as a motion to rescind an established custom, thereby requiring a 2/3 vote?If it is the desire of the assembly to prohibit the practice, it would require a bylaws amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.