Nominees

[pldeleo]

Can a candidate run for 2 positions on a board?

[Gary Novosielski]

Maybe.

If there are several identical positions called "board member", and voters are instructed to vote for, say, three people, and the top three vote getters with a majority are elected to the board, then one person cannot run for more than one position.

But someone can run for two distinctly different offices, such as vice-president and treasurer. In that event, what happens if he wins both depends on the organization. Some have rules against one person holding two offices, and the winner would have a choice to make. (And another election would need to be held for the office he declined.)

Other organizations have no such rule (or custom) and the winner could actually hold BOTH offices.

But note well that if you are sitting on a board wearing two hats that does NOT mean you get two votes. The rule is: One person, one vote.

[Guest Edgar]

Can a candidate run for 2 positions on a board?

Not only "run for" but, as far as RONR is concerned, one person can hold more than one office. In some small organizations, for example, it may not be unusual for the same person to serve as both secretary and treasurer. As always, your rules may vary.

[Gary c Tesser]

I don't quite follow how what the top of p. 440 affects this, but I hope to some day.

[pldeleo]

Thank you!

[David A Foulkes]

I don't quite follow how what the top of p. 440 affects this, but I hope to some day.

I do too. (hope you follow it some day, that is)

[Dan Honemann]

I don't quite follow how what the top of p. 440 affects this, but I hope to some day.

Aw, c'mon Gary. That paragraph at the top of page 440 couldn't be more clear.

[Gary c Tesser]

OK maybe it's me. At least it's not David this time.

[Trina]

I'm also wondering about the paragraph on p. 440; not sure if for the same reasons as Gary.

The paragraph seems clear enough if the assembly follows its instructions. What I don't understand is what happens if the assembly doesn't.

Suppose a small organization, with the familiar problem of not getting enough members to step up for officer jobs, is in the habit of electing people to more than one office (the few people willing to do the jobs are willing to wear more than one hat). They've been doing this for years. The bylaws require votes by ballot, and the members conduct their annual election accordingly, even though there is usually only one candidate for each office on the ballot.

Now, someone notices the new language at the top of p. 440, and complains that the last election was not properly conducted. Suppose one person was elected to be both secretary and treasurer. The person did not choose one of the offices over the other, nor did the assembly assign one office and then ballot again for the other (as prescribed on p. 440). Which office was the person elected to? Is one of the two offices still empty (incomplete election)? Maybe they are both still empty, since the election process was not properly completed (the assembly never got past about line 10 on p. 440)?

Or would any point of order have had to be made before the election result was announced ("Mr. A is elected as secretary and as treasurer.")? I'm inclined to this latter view, but wonder if I'm missing something...

[Dan Honemann]

I'm also wondering about the paragraph on p. 440; not sure if for the same reasons as Gary.

The paragraph seems clear enough if the assembly follows its instructions. What I don't understand is what happens if the assembly doesn't.

Suppose a small organization, with the familiar problem of not getting enough members to step up for officer jobs, is in the habit of electing people to more than one office (the few people willing to do the jobs are willing to wear more than one hat). They've been doing this for years. The bylaws require votes by ballot, and the members conduct their annual election accordingly, even though there is usually only one candidate for each office on the ballot.

Now, someone notices the new language at the top of p. 440, and complains that the last election was not properly conducted. Suppose one person was elected to be both secretary and treasurer. The person did not choose one of the offices over the other, nor did the assembly assign one office and then ballot again for the other (as prescribed on p. 440). Which office was the person elected to? Is one of the two offices still empty (incomplete election)? Maybe they are both still empty, since the election process was not properly completed (the assembly never got past about line 10 on p. 440)?

Or would any point of order have had to be made before the election result was announced ("Mr. A is elected as secretary and as treasurer.")? I'm inclined to this latter view, but wonder if I'm missing something...

I think you're quite right, Mr. A's election to both offices is a done deal (absent any provision in the bylaws prohibiting a person from holding both offices).