Running and Holding an Office

[Snow White]

We have a member who is currently eligible to run for an executive office of our club; however, within 1 week of her taking

this office, her membership status will change, and she will no longer be eligible to hold this office. (I realize that most people with integrity would not even run, but this is why we have a dilemma.) How does Robert's suggest we remove her, if she is elected, and she very well may be.

[Trina]

If the membership is likely to elect her (even knowing she will soon become ineligible to serve), why would they be likely to enforce the rules a week later?

Or, who do you have in mind, when you ask how 'we remove her'?

[Snow White]

I do not think that general membership knows that she will not be able to hold office. It is in our constitution concerning membership.

The executive board realizes this information should be made known to general membership; however, we are a PO on a military base and

the installation commander has told us that if we interpret our constitution the way we see it concerning our membership, he will close down

our club. I would like to note that he is governed by a set of mandatory regulations that prohibits him from interfering in any PO's policies and

procedures.

[Chris Harrison]

It sounds like your problem is less of proper procedure (which you all seem to understand already) and more of whether to charge that hill while under fire or to wave the white flag.

[David A Foulkes]

It would seem that a Point of Order (declaring her ineligibility to hold office) at a meeting after the member becomes ineligible would do the trick, and assuming the Chair rules it well taken, an Appeal should not be allowed according to p. 256 ll. 34-36. A variation on the theme can be found here, with particular attention to be paid to the posts by Mr. Gerber (#32 specifically). I would think a continuing breach would occur once the member's membership status changes and she becomes ineligible to hold office. I suppose holding a special meeting as soon after that as possible to deal with this would be ideal, but that's another issue. Timing is a factor, since the longer the delay in addressing this, the more time this member has in her capacity to perform any duties the membership may no longer want her to perform.

Alternatives:

1. As nominations are debatable, offering the relevant information about her pending ineligibility at the nomination/election meeting might persuade voters to elect another person.

2. Raising a Parliamentary Inquiry prior to the commencement of election voting asking the chair what happens if/when the member's membership status changes in a week making her ineligible to hold office according to the bylaws might also persuade the assembly to elect another person.

As for the commander (apparently) overstepping his authority, I can only guess what the challenges would be in defending the membership's interpretation of the constitution, and I doubt RONR will be of much help there.

[Snow White]

So if this woman is elected, and we promote a Point of Order and she is removed, who will take her place? The runner up?

[David A Foulkes]

So if this woman is elected, and we promote a Point of Order and she is removed, who will take her place? The runner up?

No, the runner up lost the election and nothing changes that. If this woman is elected, and you are successful in removing her from office after she is no longer eligible to hold the office, you have a vacancy in that office.

If your bylaws include a vacancy-filling provision, you would follow that. If not, there would need to be a special election to fill the vacancy.

[Gary Novosielski]

We have a member who is currently eligible to run for an executive office of our club; however, within 1 week of her taking

this office, her membership status will change, and she will no longer be eligible to hold this office. (I realize that most people with integrity would not even run, but this is why we have a dilemma.) How does Robert's suggest we remove her, if she is elected, and she very well may be.

This may well hinge on the exact language in your bylaws. It is logically possible for someone to be ineligible to be elected, yet not be prohibited from serving out their term. Do the bylaws say she is ineligible "to be nominated", "to run", "to be elected", "to hold office", or some other variation?

[Josh Martin]

This may well hinge on the exact language in your bylaws. It is logically possible for someone to be ineligible to be elected, yet not be prohibited from serving out their term.

Well, it's certainly possible. I don't know how logical it is.

[J. J.]

Well, it's certainly possible. I don't know how logical it is.

If it's in the bylaws, it doesn't have to be logical.

[Snow White]

Gentlemen, I assure you that our by-laws are logical. After all our organization is populated by a bunch of women . Anyway, our constitution says that active members can hold office. The lady running for an executive office is now an active member, but in June, will not be eligible to be an active member, and not even an honorary member. If she wins, she will be president for only 1 week. The reason she is running for president is because she, and about 10 other members are interpreting the constitution in a way to suit their needs and wants. We do not have time to present a change to the constitution, since it has to be posted to general membership for at least 30 days, and our elections are in 2 weeks. Your thoughts on how to clean up this mess using Robert's wonderful book?

[Chris Harrison]

Well, when the election is pending someone should point out the fact that she would only hold office for a week and then would no longer be eligible to hold the office and the VP would take over (unless the bylaws have a specific procedure for filling a vacancy in the Presidency) and there would be a vacancy for VP which would need to be filled. The members can be warned if she is elected a Point of Order will be raised as soon as she is ineligible which should be ruled Well Taken. Of course, since she would be President at that point is is likely that she will rule the Point Not Well Taken in which case someone should be prepared to Appeal that ruling (RONR pp. 255-260) and you all should also be familiar with pp. 650-651 in case she tries to dig in and refuses to acknowledge the Point of Order and/or Appeal. Hopefully the Membership will prevent this all from being an issue by not electing her in the first place but you all do have the tools to deal with it if they do elect her. Sadly, RONR is going to be of no help in dealing with the Base's commanding officer (if he is still a problem) but I am sure that there are tools outside of RONR available to keep him from exceeding his authority.

[Dan Honemann]

The reason she is running for president is because she, and about 10 other members are interpreting the constitution in a way to suit their needs and wants.

And for all we know, they may be right. This is not something that we can decide here in this forum.