No eligible nominees

[Guest Calem]

I am a member of a non-profit first responder Department. Our bilaws stage that in order to run for office, a member must obtain a certain level of credits (33) to run for office. For one officer position at the very bottom of the totem pole, nobody with eligible credits signed up to run for the position as everyone with 33 credits or above is already running for a position.

One person with 27 credits put his name on the ballot to run for that bottom position. If he is uncontested, is he able to run for that position?

Is there anything in writing about how we fill that position if there are no eligible candidates?

[Josh Martin]

6 minutes ago, Guest Calem said:

I am a member of a non-profit first responder Department. Our bilaws stage that in order to run for office, a member must obtain a certain level of credits (33) to run for office. For one officer position at the very bottom of the totem pole, nobody with eligible credits signed up to run for the position as everyone with 33 credits or above is already running for a position.

One person with 27 credits put his name on the ballot to run for that bottom position. If he is uncontested, is he able to run for that position?

No.

6 minutes ago, Guest Calem said:

Is there anything in writing about how we fill that position if there are no eligible candidates?

If there are no eligible candidates, then the society should amend the bylaws to change the qualifications. Until that occurs, then it seems the society will not be able to fill the position.

[Guest Calem]

8 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

No.

If there are no eligible candidates, then the society should amend the bylaws to change the qualifications. Until that occurs, then it seems the society will not be able to fill the position.

Our problem is that to amend our bilaws, it is a 90-day process, and we are required by our local 911 jurisdiction to fill this position by December 1st.

[Josh Martin]

18 minutes ago, Guest Calem said:

Our problem is that to amend our bilaws, it is a 90-day process, and we are required by our local 911 jurisdiction to fill this position by December 1st.

Perhaps there is someone eligible to fill the position and willing to do so on a temporary basis until the bylaws can be amended so that you don't get in trouble with your local 911 jurisdiction. Alternately, perhaps you could explain the situation to your local 911 jurisdiction and ask if they have any ideas. Perhaps there is something in applicable law that would take precedence over your bylaws.

Edited October 15, 2020 at 12:24 AM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

On 10/14/2020 at 6:48 PM, Guest Calem said:

I am a member of a non-profit first responder Department. Our bilaws stage that in order to run for office, a member must obtain a certain level of credits (33) to run for office. For one officer position at the very bottom of the totem pole, nobody with eligible credits signed up to run for the position as everyone with 33 credits or above is already running for a position.

One person with 27 credits put his name on the ballot to run for that bottom position. If he is uncontested, is he able to run for that position?

Is there anything in writing about how we fill that position if there are no eligible candidates?

Is it possible that one of the other officers can serve in this position as well as his other one at least until the bylaws are amended?  Nothing in RONR prohibits "dual office holding".  Any such prohibition would have to be in your bylaws or in some other superior rule, such as a statute.

[Nathan Zook]

To be clear, this situation is an excellent example of why requirements to hold an office are a bad idea.  The body needs to be able to fill these positions based on their own best judgement.

If this were not enough, just look at the questions of eligibility for the office of US president raised against Barack Obama, John McCain, and Ted Cruz.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Nathan, I tend to disagree unless mere existence is the goal of the organization.  In an ideological organization, for instance, requiring officers to actually hold to the beliefs it exists to promote, is a must.

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Nathan Zook said:

To be clear, this situation is an excellent example of why requirements to hold an office are a bad idea.  The body needs to be able to fill these positions based on their own best judgement.

 

Oh, I don't know. Looking at this specific case, if local policy requires the position be filled, it likely also dictates some requirements. But beyond that, it makes sense to have certain qualifications for officers of emergency response organizations, regardless of what the voters think. Having been involved in volunteer departments for a total of something like 15 years, I can say that elections often do not reflect judgments about qualifications for the job. Requirements in the bylaws avoid having a non-EMT be the first responder on medical calls, for instance - the vast majority of calls being medical. They keep people without firefighter certification from becoming line officers.

I think much of this can be solved, though, by separating out line positions (all, including Chief) from positions involved in the social club or business aspects of the organization. The person who runs fire scenes need not preside over meetings - and shouldn't, in my opinion, since people are accustomed to taking orders from that person, which is not a good way to hold a productive meeting. And if they were separated, the popularity contest could decide the officers of the social side, with a different mechanism for line officers.

[Nathan Zook]

You sure you're not talking about politics?

I agree that there are exceptionally strong reasons for members to prefer many different qualifications for various offices.  I do not agree that formalizing them has a uniformly beneficial effect.

Certainly, if the treasurer is elected, one would prefer a CPA.  But requiring that the treasurer be a CPA can put the organization in an extremely bad situation if one is not available.  As for beliefs, how on earth do you ensure that these beliefs are in fact as stated?  Going back to politics, we have the issue of "faithless" electors.  In the end, situations such as OP presents are a serious concern that can sometimes not be remedied.  OTOH, it is the duty of each member to consider carefully each candidate for election and act appropriately.

[Nathan Zook]

7 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Oh, I don't know. Looking at this specific case, if local policy requires the position be filled, it likely also dictates some requirements. But beyond that, it makes sense to have certain qualifications for officers of emergency response organizations, regardless of what the voters think. Having been involved in volunteer departments for a total of something like 15 years, I can say that elections often do not reflect judgments about qualifications for the job. Requirements in the bylaws avoid having a non-EMT be the first responder on medical calls, for instance - the vast majority of calls being medical. They keep people without firefighter certification from becoming line officers.

I think much of this can be solved, though, by separating out line positions (all, including Chief) from positions involved in the social club or business aspects of the organization. The person who runs fire scenes need not preside over meetings - and shouldn't, in my opinion, since people are accustomed to taking orders from that person, which is not a good way to hold a productive meeting. And if they were separated, the popularity contest could decide the officers of the social side, with a different mechanism for line officers.

WAT?  So you elect your firefighters and ambulance drivers?

I...

Yeah, that would be different.  But a really, really bad idea to me.  Surely, you want to elect an executive officer or board to hire people.

[Joshua Katz]

1 minute ago, Nathan Zook said:

WAT?  So you elect your firefighters and ambulance drivers?

 

Not quite. In areas with volunteer departments, the departments often elect their officers. They don't elect their firefighters and *ahem* EMTs and paramedics, but they do elect chiefs, and sometimes lower-ranking officers as well. In one department I was a part of, technically the elected chief then had to be confirmed by the board of fire commissioners, but they always rubber-stamped it. In the others, there was no process beyond election - and qualifications in the bylaws and/or local law.

The reason I mentioned first-responding is that there is usually a duty officer, who will be first on scene in an emergency.

Although, I guess there is a sense in which they elect their members, too, since the membership votes on admitting new members. Obviously, being voted in as a member doesn't mean you can treat patients, drive equipment, or fight fires without the necessary credentials.

3 minutes ago, Nathan Zook said:

Yeah, that would be different.  But a really, really bad idea to me.  Surely, you want to elect an executive officer or board to hire people.

I agree, the model is screwed up for a wide variety of reasons. 

[Nathan Zook]

3 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

... *ahem* EMTs and paramedics

No offense intended (at all!)  I honestly thought that "first responder" mapped differently.

[Weldon Merritt]

I don't necessarily think that there should be no qualifications for office, but I do think organization should carefully consider what, if any, qualifications, they want to require. The more qualifications you impose, the smaller the pool of eligible candidates.

[Nathan Zook]

5 minutes ago, Weldon Merritt said:

I don't necessarily think that there should be no qualifications for office, but I do think organization should carefully consider what, if any, qualifications, they want to require. The more qualifications you impose, the smaller the pool of eligible candidates.

To be clear, I agree that many or even most offices should have requirements.  I just don't believe that putting requirements in writing serves the long-term interests of the body.  It's like US congress trying to decide what constitutes an impeachable offense.  There are words in the US constitution about it, but they don't matter (because there is no one to enforce them on the body.)

[Richard Brown]

10 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

To be clear, I agree that many or even most offices should have requirements.  I just don't believe that putting requirements in writing serves the long-term interests of the body

Huh? I’m confused. Do you or do you not believe in requirements for holding office? You want requirements but don’t want them in writing? How does that make it a requirement? 

[Nathan Zook]

11 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Huh? I’m confused. Do you or do you not believe in requirements for holding office? You want requirements but don’t want them in writing? How does that make it a requirement? 

I want the voting members of the assembly to enforce the requirements via their nominations and votes.  I'm a proud rules nerd, but I am pointedly aware of the limitations of written rules.  England's constitution, for instance, is not written.  That does not make it any less real.

[Weldon Merritt]

1 hour ago, Nathan Zook said:

I want the voting members of the assembly to enforce the requirements via their nominations and votes.  I'm a proud rules nerd, but I am pointedly aware of the limitations of written rules.  England's constitution, for instance, is not written.  That does not make it any less real.

I will not venture an opinion on the "realness" of the English constitution, but I can say with a pretty high degree of confidence that so far as RONR is concerned, if it's not written, it's not a rule. At best, it's a custom, which, in the event a conflict with a written rule (and a Point of Order citing the written rule), "the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with." RONR (12th ed.) 2:25.

[Nathan Zook]

9 minutes ago, Weldon Merritt said:

I will not venture an opinion on the "realness" of the English constitution, but I can say with a pretty high degree of confidence that so far as RONR is concerned, if it's not written, it's not a rule. At best, it's a custom, which, in the event a conflict with a written rule (and a Point of Order citing the written rule), "the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with." RONR (12th ed.) 2:25.

I think we're arguing about the difference between formal and informal law now.  If you object to the use of the term "rule" in regards to informal law, okay.  But we are talking under what circumstances it it wise to thwart the will of the majority.  Given the nature of elections (that, barring extreme circumstances, they are noticed, often months in advance), I am loathe to block a majority vote on an election.  The example at hand (possibly, qualifications not being met by the only person available) is an exquisite example.  You might have the same problem if the treasurer were required to be a CPA or the parliamentarian a member of the NAP.  No matter how reasonable such a requirement might sound at the time, the real possibility that no one might be available at some later date should not be dismissed.

Which is not to say that such requirements should not be front and center in the minds of the members at the time of election--they absolutely should.  But when such "requirements" need to yield to bigger issues, I believe that the members need to be free to decide such things.

[Atul Kapur]

Okay, then stop calling them requirements. Job ads often differentiate requirements and "assets" or "ideal characteristics."

And recognize that if they're not written, then there is a significant risk that they will be forgotten or mis-remembered.

[Nathan Zook]

4 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

Okay, then stop calling them requirements. Job ads often differentiate requirements and "assets" or "ideal characteristics."

And recognize that if they're not written, then there is a significant risk that they will be forgotten or mis-remembered.

Specified.

[Weldon Merritt]

10 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

I think we're arguing about the difference between formal and informal law now.

I doubt that there is any such thing as "informal law." As a Supreme Court Justice once said (Unfortunately, which justice and in wat case, I don't recall), "The unwritten law isn't worth the paper it isn't written on."

10 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Okay, then stop calling them requirements. Job ads often differentiate requirements and "assets" or "ideal characteristics."

And recognize that if they're not written, then there is a significant risk that they will be forgotten or mis-remembered.

I fully concur with Dr. Kapur. 

[Richard Brown]

11 minutes ago, Weldon Merritt said:

I fully concur with Dr. Kapur.

As do I.  As I said in my earlier comment, either you believe in job requirements or you don't, and if you do believe in them, they must (or most definitely should) be in writing or they will be forgotten and mis-remembered from year to year and will quickly become a "he said, she said" as to what the requirements (if any) actually are. And, of course, if not in writing, some will say that they aren't really requirements at all.  Maybe that is Mr. Zook's intent.

[Nathan Zook]

My intent is to allow the organization to go about its business with the minimum fuss necessary to ensure its long-term health.  That includes the usual line with respect to majorities and minorities.  It also means that rules should be as minimal as possible (but no more).  As we have seen by op's post, if absolutely no where else, rules regarding the qualifications can have the problematic effect of reducing the pool of candidates to zero.  This can have catastrophic effects on organizations, and in my opinion, that is reason to be exceptionally careful about putting them beyond the reach of a majority.

Thinking some more about the situation, that is my nut--the need of the majority to be able to effect its will with respect to an election. A bylaws provision that could be freely suspended by the majority for a single election would satisfy the concern I have been focusing on as well as the complementary concern that unwritten requirements are well-known to be subject to corruption.  This would also satisfy the need for some sort of requirement, such as bonding, which might be problematic to effect if it were not in the bylaws.

Going further, it seems to me advisable to also permit a majority to willfully leave some office(s) unfilled  (I'm thinking about an office NOT part of the sample bylaws).  A vote to fill a vacancy created willfully should then require notice.

[Weldon Merritt]

Nathan, everything that you say you want the assembly to be able to do can be accomplished with well-written bylaws. But very little of it could be assured by relying on some sort of "unwritten rule." It seems to me that there are three possibilities regarding contemplated requirements for holding office:

• Requirements deemed absolutely essential. Put those in the bylaws, with no suspension allowed.
• Requirements deemed important, but not essential. Put those in the bylaws, but with a provision allowing suspension by some specified voting threshold.
• Totally irrelevant requirements. Don't put them in any written rule. (But individual members are free to take them into account in their voting.)

And of course, it's up to each organization to decide for itself where on that spectrum any proposed requirement falls. The answer may vary greatly among different organizations.

[Nathan Zook]

2 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

I doubt that there is any such thing as "informal law." As a Supreme Court Justice once said (Unfortunately, which justice and in wat case, I don't recall), "The unwritten law isn't worth the paper it isn't written on."

I learned the formal term "informal law" from an article in Scientific America some decades ago.  The article used as its example the fight between open range & closed range laws in the state of Ohio.  What the researchers found was that the actual behavior of the farmers was well defined--and completely ignored the adopted statute.  To top things off, having been raised on the farm in Kansas, I knew precisely what the correct behavior was even though if challenged, I would have been hard pressed to demonstrate how I knew any particular point, let alone the entire thing.  So I cannot concur with honorable justice.  He certainly never shook hands with Moe Howard.

More locally, what does the word "should" refer to in RONR if not to informal law?  As to the conduct of meetings, I am hard-pressed to find a more important rule than that the chairman maintain the appearance of impartiality.  And yet, this is a "should" rule.  A search for the term "informal law" results in many hits.

I understand (and agree) with what RONR says about custom when it conflicts with RONR.  I've also seen organizations completely fall apart and have to be reconstituted when it was applied.