Election eligibility evaluation

[Sean Hunt]

Perhaps I'm straying too far into questions of bylaw interpretation, but should eligibility for election to an office be evaluated at the time that the election is held or only at the start of the term of office? For instance, if a member of a standing committee must be an officer, is it enough (and required) that a candidate has been elected an officer for the coming year, or must they be an officer both years unless otherwise specified?

[George Mervosh]

RONR seems to split things into to two those two elements you mentioned: 1) The time the election takes effect. 2) The time the officer-elect takes possession of his office. Based upon what is said on p. 444, ll. 17-32, in my opinion, he has to be eligible at the time the election takes effect, not just when he takes actual possession of his office, otherwise you've adopted a main motion that conflicts with the bylaws at the time it was adopted.

[Guest Edgar]

Based upon what is said on p. 444, ll. 17-32, in my opinion, he has to be eligible at the time the election takes effect, not just when he takes actual possession of his office, otherwise you've adopted a main motion that conflicts with the bylaws at the time it was adopted.

I'm not so sure. RONR assumes the elected candidate takes office the moment the election is complete so it is virtually impossible (or at least highly unlikely) to be eligible to take office but not eligible at the time the election is complete. In many organizations, however, there is a gap. Sometimes it's only until the end of the meeting at which the election was held. Sometime it's not until the start of the next meeting. Sometimes it's considerably longer.

Joe Biden was elected to the U.S. Senate on November 7, 1972. He turned 30 (the minimum age for serving in the Senate) on November 20, 1972 and took office on January 3, 1973. More interestingly, in 1934, Rush D. Holt, Sr., was elected to the Senate at the age of 29; he waited until he turned 30 (on the following June 19) to take the oath of office.

[Bruce Lages]

or must they be an officer both years unless otherwise specified?

Which 'both years' are you referring to?

[Josh Martin]

Perhaps I'm straying too far into questions of bylaw interpretation, but should eligibility for election to an office be evaluated at the time that the election is held or only at the start of the term of office?

Eligibility for office is evaluated through the entire term of office.

Whether it should also be evaluated at the time the election is held (in organizations where there is a gap) is a question of bylaws interpretation.

For instance, if a member of a standing committee must be an officer, is it enough (and required) that a candidate has been elected an officer for the coming year, or must they be an officer both years unless otherwise specified?

If the committee members are elected to two-year terms, the latter.

[Sean Hunt]

Which 'both years' are you referring to?

I mean both the current year (in which the election is to take effect) and the subsequent year (in which the committee member is to begin his term).

[Josh Martin]

I mean both the current year (in which the election is to take effect) and the subsequent year (in which the committee member is to begin his term).

Ah, now we've cleared that up.

I think in this particular instance, it seems clear to me that the member would only need to be an officer during the time he actually serves on the committee, not at the time he is elected to the committee. I doubt the rule was intended so that first-term officers were precluded from serving.

[George Mervosh]

Perhaps I'm straying too far into questions of bylaw interpretation, but should eligibility for election to an office be evaluated at the time that the election is held or only at the start of the term of office?

This is the general question I was responding to.

See this thread, particularly post #32 and see if some of what was said isn't applicable to this question. http://robertsrules....ble-candidates/

[Josh Martin]

This is the general question I was responding to.

See this thread, particularly post #32 and see if some of what was said isn't applicable to this question. http://robertsrules....ble-candidates/

Well, the last paragraph of Post #32 says (as usual) that it's up to the society to interpret its own Bylaws.

By the way, all of this assumes that the individual takes office at the time of the election. If the term of office begins at a later time, then there may questions of bylaws interpretation regarding exactly at which point the person must be qualified for the office.

[George Mervosh]

Well, the last paragraph of Post #32 says (as usual) that it's up to the society to interpret its own Bylaws.

Indeed. I'm purposefully straying from Sean's "for instance" which certainly leads us into the area of bylaw interpretation. Suppose no one questions that at the time the election is final the member is not eligible to hold a particular office, but he will be eligible when he actually assumes that office (there is a delay between the election date and the date he assumes office in the bylaws). If a member makes a point of order in between those two occurrences (election finality and assumption of office), that the member did not meet the qualifications for the office, would any of you rule the point of order not well taken?

[Dan Honemann]

Indeed. I'm purposefully straying from Sean's "for instance" which certainly leads us into the area of bylaw interpretation. Suppose no one questions that at the time the election is final the member is not eligible to hold a particular office, but he will be eligible when he actually assumes that office (there is a delay between the election date and the date he assumes office in the bylaws). If a member makes a point of order in between those two occurrences (election finality and assumption of office), that the member did not meet the qualifications for the office, would any of you rule the point of order not well taken?

Maybe.

[Guest Edgar]

If a member makes a point of order in between those two occurrences (election finality and assumption of office), that the member did not meet the qualifications for the office, would any of you rule the point of order not well taken?

If the qualification was something "inevitable" such as reaching a certain age, sure. If it was something more contingent, like completing a certain course, maybe.

[Josh Martin]

Suppose no one questions that at the time the election is final the member is not eligible to hold a particular office, but he will be eligible when he actually assumes that office (there is a delay between the election date and the date he assumes office in the bylaws). If a member makes a point of order in between those two occurrences (election finality and assumption of office), that the member did not meet the qualifications for the office, would any of you rule the point of order not well taken?

I think it depends too much on the facts and rules of a particular case to give a general answer.