user Posted June 5, 2021 at 04:36 AM Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 at 04:36 AM Assuming the bylaws do not prohibit it, is there anything in Robert's Rules of Order that prohibit a member from running for and being elected to more than one officer position? Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted June 5, 2021 at 04:50 AM Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 at 04:50 AM 2 minutes ago, user said: Assuming the bylaws do not prohibit it, is there anything in Robert's Rules of Order that prohibit a member from running for and being elected to more than one officer position? Thank you! No there is no such prohibition, but certain combinations are borderline absurd, like holding both president and vice president offices. However, there is a rule that if multiple offices are voted on a single ballot, such that members will not know the outcome for each office before voting on the next, then a member cannot be elected to more than one office per ballot, and a member who gets a majority for more than one office must choose one. Another election is then held for the office(s) that were declined. The member may then be elected to additional offices on those additional ballots. None of these restrictions are necessary if separate elections are held for each office, so that members know the results before voting on the next office. [46:31(1)] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user Posted June 5, 2021 at 05:11 AM Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 at 05:11 AM 14 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said: No there is no such prohibition, but certain combinations are borderline absurd, like holding both president and vice president offices. However, there is a rule that if multiple offices are voted on a single ballot, such that members will not know the outcome for each office before voting on the next, then a member cannot be elected to more than one office per ballot, and a member who gets a majority for more than one office must choose one. Another election is then held for the office(s) that were declined. The member may then be elected to additional offices on those additional ballots. None of these restrictions are necessary if separate elections are held for each office, so that members know the results before voting on the next office. [46:31(1)] Thank you! Regarding your comment stating some combinations would be borderline absurd, what if there are multiple vice president offices where each vice president is in charge of a specific area. Would you still consider it absurd to hold the president role and one of those several vice president roles? If so, why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 5, 2021 at 03:30 PM Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 at 03:30 PM 10 hours ago, user said: Regarding your comment stating some combinations would be borderline absurd, what if there are multiple vice president offices where each vice president is in charge of a specific area. Would you still consider it absurd to hold the president role and one of those several vice president roles? If so, why? The "Vice President" as the term is used in RONR refers to an officer whose principal (and often only) duties are to perform the duties of the President in the event of the President's absence from a meeting and to become President in the event of a vacancy in that office. In such a case, there would seem to be little reason to have a person serve in both roles - it would seem more logical to simply leave the position of Vice President vacant until a person is found to serve in that office, since it essentially amounts to the same thing. If the "Vice President" in a particular society (whether there is one of these persons or multiple such persons) is something different, then the reasoning above will not be applicable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user Posted June 5, 2021 at 03:47 PM Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 at 03:47 PM Ok, got it. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 5, 2021 at 04:26 PM Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 at 04:26 PM Assume that the bylaws of the organization are identical to the sample bylaws found in RONR, 12th ed., 56:58-67, except that Article IV, Section 4, provides only that "No member shall be eligible to serve three consecutive terms in the same office." By my standards, these bylaws (as so modified) will prohibit, by necessary implication, any member from holding more than one of the three offices of President, First Vice-President, and Second-Vice President. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted June 5, 2021 at 04:58 PM Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 at 04:58 PM Would you mind fleshing that out a bit more for those of us who don't see why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 5, 2021 at 05:52 PM Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 at 05:52 PM It is not possible for any person to perform the duties of two of these offices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted June 5, 2021 at 06:24 PM Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 at 06:24 PM 29 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: It is not possible for any person to perform the duties of two of these offices. I can buy that. But I still don't see what a provision that "No member shall be eligible to serve three consecutive terms in the same office" has to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 5, 2021 at 07:19 PM Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 at 07:19 PM 50 minutes ago, Weldon Merritt said: I can buy that. But I still don't see what a provision that "No member shall be eligible to serve three consecutive terms in the same office" has to do with it. That portion of Article IV, Section 4, of the sample bylaws has nothing to do with it. It's the portion that I took out that does. 🙂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted June 5, 2021 at 07:39 PM Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 at 07:39 PM 11 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: That portion of Article IV, Section 4, of the sample bylaws has nothing to do with it. It's the portion that I took out that does. 🙂 Oh; ok. I should have read the sample bylaws and not just you post. But now I'm even more confused. How does removing an explicit prohibition on holding multiple offices at the same time lead to a conclusion that doing so is prohibited "by necessary implication"? Or are you just saying that the nature of the positions prohibits serving in more than one of them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 5, 2021 at 08:11 PM Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 at 08:11 PM 27 minutes ago, Weldon Merritt said: Oh; ok. I should have read the sample bylaws and not just you post. But now I'm even more confused. How does removing an explicit prohibition on holding multiple offices at the same time lead to a conclusion that doing so is prohibited "by necessary implication"? Or are you just saying that the nature of the positions prohibits serving in more than one of them? Yes, I am saying that the sample bylaws, even without the explicit prohibition, prohibit any member from holding more than one of the three offices of President, First Vice-President, and Second-Vice President. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted June 5, 2021 at 08:28 PM Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 at 08:28 PM Ah, I see now. I was trying to get it from what you left in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted June 5, 2021 at 10:00 PM Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 at 10:00 PM Well, I'm still not sure that it would be prohibited. But I certainly agree that it would be completely illogical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted June 6, 2021 at 12:33 AM Report Share Posted June 6, 2021 at 12:33 AM 5 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: That portion of Article IV, Section 4, of the sample bylaws has nothing to do with it. It's the portion that I took out that does. 🙂 Ah, I missed the word only, on first reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 7, 2021 at 11:24 AM Report Share Posted June 7, 2021 at 11:24 AM On 6/5/2021 at 8:33 PM, Gary Novosielski said: Ah, I missed the word only, on first reading. Yes, as the man said, "words matter." 🙂 Early on in this thread, you indicated that holding both the office of president and vice president would be "borderline absurd", and Mr. Merritt calls it "illogical". I don't think these terms are strong enough because, even if there is no express prohibition in the bylaws against holding more than one office, the bylaws very often (and probably most often) do prohibit any member from holding both the office of President and Vice-President. No person is eligible to serve in two offices if the bylaws make it literally impossible for him to perform the duties of both offices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted June 10, 2021 at 02:45 AM Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 at 02:45 AM On 6/7/2021 at 7:24 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said: Yes, as the man said, "words matter." 🙂 Early on in this thread, you indicated that holding both the office of president and vice president would be "borderline absurd", and Mr. Merritt calls it "illogical". I don't think these terms are strong enough because, even if there is no express prohibition in the bylaws against holding more than one office, the bylaws very often (and probably most often) do prohibit any member from holding both the office of President and Vice-President. No person is eligible to serve in two offices if the bylaws make it literally impossible for him to perform the duties of both offices. Oh, I'd be happy to drop the word "borderline". I only used it because I had a (possibly false) memory of being corrected by somebody when I said it was not allowed. While many bylaws (including the sample in RONR) do prohibit holding multiple offices, there are a fair number that do not, and RONR takes pains to point out the proper way to elect people to multiple offices if the bylaws don't prohibit it. But president/vice-president, while it seems like an obvious error, could benefit from a more strenuous denunciation in the text. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts