Possible Standing Rule conflict

[Guest cakelady]

Members of a chapter of an international non-profit organization recently passed a standing rule concerning an individual holding more than one office during a single term. Current Chapter Bylaws state under Meetings: A meeting for the election of Representative, Alternate(s), Secretary and Treasurer will be held at least every two (2) years. (Secretary and Treasurer may be Alternates.) Similar statement in signed Chapter Affiliation Agreement: Each Chapter will be required to have a Representative, Alternate(s), a Secretary and a Treasurer. Alternate(s) may hold the positions of Secretary and Treasurer, the Representative may not hold such positions. Elections held in August for this next 2-year term had several individuals running for more than one office. Per RONR, 46. Nominations & Elections, pg 440, lines 3-17, when there is no provision, individuals hold only one office per term. Members at said election meeting passed a Standing Rule stating such for our chapter so there would be no further question. Based on this simple explanation, was this standing rule motion invalid?

[Guest Edgar]

Per RONR, 46. Nominations & Elections, pg 440, lines 3-17, when there is no provision, individuals hold only one office per term.

That's not what it says.

[Chris Harrison]

Per RONR, 46. Nominations & Elections, pg 440, lines 3-17, when there is no provision, individuals hold only one office per term.

You might want to reread that citation because it doesn't say what you think it says.

Members at said election meeting passed a Standing Rule stating such for our chapter so there would be no further question. Based on this simple explanation, was this standing rule motion invalid?

If the bylaws say that someone can hold more than one office at a time then the Standing Rule would be null and void based on RONR p. 251(a).(though stay tuned as to whether the entire rule is null and void or merely the aspect that conflicts with the bylaws).

[Guest Cakelady]

I think I may understand my misinterpretation of that citation. However, let me ask this: If the chapter bylaws state, Secretary and Treasurer may be Alternates, and Affiliation Agreement states, Alternate(s) may hold the positions of Secretary and Treasurer, we are questioning 1) the use of the word "may" and the option being given to the chapter members to not allow one person in two officer positions; and 2) the clarification being given to the members that this only be allowed in the area of an appointment to fill an officer position vacancy. This is the first time that a single candidate has run for two officers positions in the same election, and it happened with three candidates. Our chapter members want clarification for the future (and especially since it is not allowed for our international Board of Directors to hold two officers positions, and we want the same at the chapter level). Any help for correct understanding is greatly appreciated.

[rthib]

Read the chapter in RONR about interpreting bylaws.

Lots of people can give opinions about what it says, but the members get to decide what they mean.

Someone is nominated to multiple positions.

Chair states this is out of order because of his opinion of the bylaws.

Members then can either affirm or appeal this decision.

And just because they decide one way, does not mean that during the next election someone could read the bylaws completely differently and rule completely differently.

Unless you have a bylaw that clearly states: An officer may only hold one position or They can not hold more than one position, everything else will be up to interpretation.

To solve the problem:

Amend you bylaws so that they are clear.