Board with staggered terms

[Guest Gingerbear]

Our board has three-year terms that expire in different years. Is there anything in Robert’s Rules that would preclude a board member from running for a three-year term that will be filled at the next meeting, thereby vacating the remaining year of his current term? Nothing in our bylaws says he cannot do this. 

[Dan Honemann]

This is an interesting question.  I can't think of anything in Robert's Rules which will prevent it.

However, a bylaw provision limiting terms in office may prevent it. For example, do your bylaws provide something such as: "No member shall be eligible to serve three consecutive terms in the same office"?  If they do, I think such a provision may prevent your member from running for a new three-year term.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/13/2023 at 5:49 AM, Guest Gingerbear said:

Our board has three-year terms that expire in different years. Is there anything in Robert’s Rules that would preclude a board member from running for a three-year term that will be filled at the next meeting, thereby vacating the remaining year of his current term? Nothing in our bylaws says he cannot do this. 

That is an interesting question.

It certainly could create a problem if he won.  When exactly would his present seat be vacated?

I think it could be logically argued that it's not in order to run for an office (i.e., board member) that one already holds.  If we accept that, then to run for a different term, he would have to resign from his current term, effective on or before election day.   In that case, he runs the risk of losing, and being out of both seats at the end of the day.   

If he'll resign his present seat only after confirming that he'd been elected to the longer term, I think I'd have to object to that. 

But that's just me.  If your bylaws are silent, and RONR (apparently) is silent, then maybe it's allowed, but that's something your society will have to interpret for itself.  I'd be arguing for the "gotta resign first" case, but since I'm not a member, that's neither here nor there.

[Dan Honemann]

On 6/13/2023 at 10:10 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

It certainly could create a problem if he won.  When exactly would his present seat be vacated?

I think it could be logically argued that it's not in order to run for an office (i.e., board member) that one already holds.  If we accept that, then to run for a different term, he would have to resign from his current term, effective on or before election day.   In that case, he runs the risk of losing, and being out of both seats at the end of the day.   

But the conventional wisdom, as I understand it, is that a member holding one office may run for another without first resigning from the office that he holds even when the bylaws prohibit members from holding two offices at a time.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/13/2023 at 10:54 AM, Dan Honemann said:

But the conventional wisdom, as I understand it, is that a member holding one office may run for another without first resigning from the office that he holds even when the bylaws prohibit members from holding two offices at a time.

That's certainly true.  But my thinking here is that he is not running for another office.  He is running for the same office that he already holds.  And whether or not the bylaws prohibit members from holding two offices at a time, it would be absurd for a member to hold two identical seats in one office simultaneously.  So in my view, he should not be allowed to run for a different term length of the same office, without unconditionally resigning from the seat he currently holds.

 

[Atul Kapur]

That seems unnecessary. Even if you agree that these are two incompatible positions, rather than two equivalent positions, then there is no requirement to resign from the one until and unless the person is elected to the other as well.

And I disagree that "Director, term 2021-2024" is identical to "Director 2023-2026."

Edited June 13, 2023 at 03:47 PM by Atul Kapur

[J. J.]

I am familiar with this happening in public office.  Two different terms are, e.g. a 4 year and a 6 year term.  Someone may run for both. 

[Guest Board with staggered terms]

Just to clarify one point, there is no limit in the bylaws as to holding consecutive terms.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/13/2023 at 1:45 PM, J. J. said:

I am familiar with this happening in public office.  Two different terms are, e.g. a 4 year and a 6 year term.  Someone may run for both. 

And I'm familiar with the identical situation for NJ school board where the short term was listed separately but a candidate could not run for both.

Edited to add:

@J. J., I wonder if the situation was really similar to the current question, where someone would be on the ballot once, for a full term, being already an incumbent in an equivalent non-expiring term.

Edited June 13, 2023 at 06:36 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/13/2023 at 11:44 AM, Atul Kapur said:

And I disagree that "Director, term 2021-2024" is identical to "Director 2023-2026."

Offices are as listed in the bylaws.  I'll bet you won't find those two "different" offices listed there.

[Atul Kapur]

On 6/13/2023 at 2:21 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

And I'm familiar with the identical situation for NJ school board where the short term was listed separately but a candidate could not run for both.

As Mr. Honemann said above, this prohibition is not found in RONR, so it must be from a higher-level authority.

[Atul Kapur]

On 6/13/2023 at 1:52 PM, Guest Board with staggered terms said:

Just to clarify one point, there is no limit in the bylaws as to holding consecutive terms.

Then I would say the person, if otherwise eligible, is free to run for a 2023-2026 position even though they currently hold a 2021-2024 position. If elected to the '23-'26 position, this person would presumably resign the '21-'24 position, creating a vacancy for the last year of that term. 

[J. J.]

On 6/13/2023 at 2:21 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

And I'm familiar with the identical situation for NJ school board where the short term was listed separately but a candidate could not run for both.

Edited to add:

@J. J., I wonder if the situation was really similar to the current question, where someone would be on the ballot once, for a full term, being already an incumbent in an equivalent non-expiring term.

Sometimes, especially where are 6 year terms.  It was more common pre-1970 in Pennsylvania. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/13/2023 at 2:33 PM, Atul Kapur said:

As Mr. Honemann said above, this prohibition is not found in RONR, so it must be from a higher-level authority.

If you will indulge me a bit longer: hypothetically, presume the current scenario, and suppose that no applicable rule prohibits people from holding multiple offices.

An incumbent director, having served two years of a three-year term, is permitted to run for a new three-year term, is elected, and does not immediately resign from his existing seat. Presume the board per the bylaws, is to have nine members

• Does he now hold multiple offices? One office?  
• Must he resign from (or automatically vacate) his current seat?
• If he remains in both seats, how many members does the board now have?  
• A member raises a point of order that there is an unfilled vacancy.  How should the chair rule?

[Dan Honemann]

On 6/13/2023 at 2:55 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

An incumbent director, having served two years of a three-year term, is permitted to run for a new three-year term, is elected, and does not immediately resign from his existing seat. Presume the board per the bylaws, is to have nine members

• Does he now hold multiple offices? One office?  
• Must he resign from (or automatically vacate) his current seat?
• If he remains in both seats, how many members does the board now have?  
• A member raises a point of order that there is an unfilled vacancy.  How should the chair rule?

I think that acceptance of the new seat automatically results in a vacancy in the existing seat.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/13/2023 at 3:03 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I think that acceptance of the new seat automatically results in a vacancy in the existing seat.

If that's the case, it would resolve most of my concerns.  

So it seems we agree, then, that even if the bylaws allow the holding of multiple offices, the holding of multiple identical seats for one office is a different matter and should be assumed to be improper.

It makes perfect sense to me, but I don't know of any specific language that could be cited in support of it.