Oaths of office & customary law?

[Guest Susie R]

I am in an organization that has required officers and board members to make an oath when elected in order to take office. This practice is not codified, but has been part of the installation ceremony for decades. I understand that RR does not require oaths of office (usually ceremonial) unless required by the bylaws of the organization.  My question: is there any point that something like this falls into a common law-type circumstance?  We have a replacement board member who feels she needs to be 'sworn in' to assume the position.  If everyone assuming the same position for a regular term must make an oath, wouldn't it follow that someone taking over the position for a shortened term must also make the oath? 

[Gary Novosielski]

As you noted, RONR does not require oaths of any kind.

If by rule or custom, your society swears in officers, RONR would leave the details of who, where and when up to you.  

But as far as RONR is concerned, such oaths are merely ceremonial and do not affect the point at which newly appointed officers are officially officers.

[Richard Brown]

Agreeing with Mr Novosielski, it seems to me if your organization has a custom of requiring new officers to take an oath prior to assuming office that the custom should also apply to a new officer filling a vacancy. It seems to me that person is as much a new officer as she would be if she is elected  at a regular election rather than a special election to fill a vacancy.

Ultimately, however, it is up to your organization to interpret its own rules and customs.

[Guest Susie R]

Gentleman,

Thank you for your quick responses!

There are arguments on both sides of this issue that are logical.  I think that, whatever is decided, it should be included in the bylaws to avoid future confusion.

Again, I appreciate you both sharing your expertise!

[Joshua Katz]

14 hours ago, Guest Susie R said:

If everyone assuming the same position for a regular term must make an oath, wouldn't it follow that someone taking over the position for a shortened term must also make the oath? 

 

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Ultimately, however, it is up to your organization to interpret its own rules and customs.

 

12 minutes ago, Guest Susie R said:

There are arguments on both sides of this issue that are logical.  I think that, whatever is decided, it should be included in the bylaws to avoid future confusion.

 

I agree with the last point, but I do not accept any implication, if there is one, that a custom can delay a person's taking office once all actual bylaw requirements are met, and so I do not think your organization has such a rule for a regular term or any other term.

14 hours ago, Guest Susie R said:

My question: is there any point that something like this falls into a common law-type circumstance? 

No. It can be a custom, but a custom may not contradict a bylaw. If the bylaws say a person is in office, then he has the right (and duty) to execute all the functions of that office, and the prior officer is out. No custom can delay that change when the bylaws say it has occurred.

[Setemu]

 

RONR states that "a particular practice may sometimes come to be followed as a matter of established custom so that it is practically treated as if it were prescribed by rule. If there is no contrary provision in the parliamentary authority or written rules of the organization, the established custom should be adhered to unless the assembly, by majority vote, agrees in a particular instance to do otherwise. However, if a customary practice is or becomes in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a Point of Order citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with." (RONR p. 19. ll. 1-15).

It sounds to me that oath-taking as a requirement for assuming duties has been a customary practice treated practically as a rule. It sounds like the member would like to raise a Point of Order insisting on the oath, and the chair of the board should then rule on the Point of Order. It should be noted that this would not be a Point of Order citing a conflict but rather a Point of Order insisting on following customary practice which has been treated as a rule. As such, the custom does not fall to the ground by virtue of raising this particular Point of Order. However, given the logic provided by Mr. Katz, which I agree with, the chair would need to rule that the Point of Order is not well taken, citing a conflict between custom and the parliamentary authority.  At that time, the custom as a whole would fall to the ground, and as such no one thereafter would be required to take an oath prior to assuming responsibilities office (this does not mean that no one ever takes an oath, only that it is is not required to assume responsibilities). If another member then insists that the oath should be taken prior to assuming responsibilities, that member (or anyone else who would agree) should move to amend the by-laws (2/3-vote required) to state that.

[I'll need the heavy-hitters here to check me especially on this one:] If the chair is in doubt as to how to rule, the chair may submit the Point of Order to a vote of the board, through which the board may insist on the oath-taking for the person in question, or the board may in this case decide that the member does not need to take the oath prior to assuming duties, leaving the general customary practice alone until that point at which someone raises a Point of Order citing the conflict, or the custom is codified in the by-laws.

 

Edited January 15, 2019 at 03:28 PM by Setemu
minor grammar

[Guest Susie R]

Setemu,

Thank you for the reference!  I thought that there was something (somewhere) in RR that related specifically to cases such as this.  I truly appreciate your citation!

I greatly appreciate the knowledge all of you have shared and the time taken to do so.  

I have recommended that the board may want to discuss the issue and refer it to the bylaws committee if deemed necessary.  Your help has been invaluable!

[Alexis Hunt]

I agree with Setemu, with the caveat that if the member wishes to take the oath, then I would probably rule that custom dictates it be administered, and likely that it could interrupt business as a Question of Privilege.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Alexis Hunt said:

I agree with Setemu, with the caveat that if the member wishes to take the oath, then I would probably rule that custom dictates it be administered, and likely that it could interrupt business as a Question of Privilege.

I concur that custom dictates that the oath be administered, and I can see a case for the taking of the oath being a question of privilege, since it relates “to the conduct of its [the assembly’s] officers and employees,” but I would not rule that the taking of the oath “is of sufficient urgency to warrant interruption of the existing parliamentary situation.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 228) If the assembly insists on administering the oath immediately, the assembly could vote to lay the pending business on the table, or to take a recess.

The key parliamentary point is that the failure to take an oath (even one prescribed by rule, let alone by custom) does not affect the time at which the officers take office and begin to perform their duties, unless the bylaws so provide. “An officer-elect takes possession of his office immediately upon his election's becoming final, unless the bylaws or other rules specify a later time. If a formal installation ceremony is prescribed, failure to hold it does not affect the time at which the new officers assume office.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 444)

Edited January 16, 2019 at 06:05 PM by Josh Martin