Eligibility for Office; Continuing Breech

[Weldon Merritt]

1. RONR 47:4 provides.  “In filling vacancies for unexpired terms, an officer who has served more than half a term in an office is considered to have served a full term.” In context, that provision clearly applies to determining whether an officer has reached a specified term limit. Does it also apply to determining whether a candidate meets a requirement that he must have served a specified number of terms in a previous position before election?

2. Assume the bylaws say that a candidate for a particular office must have served a specified number of terms in another office before the beginning of the term for the office the candidate is seeking. Assume further that a member does not meet that requirement at the beginning of the term for a particular office, and someone else is elected. That office later becomes vacant, and the previously disqualified candidate has then served the requisite number of terms (by applying the “more than half-a-term counts as a full term” provision). Is the candidate now eligible to be elected or appointed to fill the vacancy, even though the term for that office actually began several months previously?

3. Assume that an ineligible member nevertheless is elected or appointed. At a later meeting, a Point of Order is raised that the election is null and void due to the member’s ineligibility, and the chair rules the point well taken. Then there is an appeal of the chair’s ruling. May the member in question vote on the appeal?

4. Would the answer to question 3 be different if the chair’s ruling was that the point was not well taken?
 

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/1/2024 at 4:05 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

1. RONR 47:4 provides.  “In filling vacancies for unexpired terms, an officer who has served more than half a term in an office is considered to have served a full term.” In context, that provision clearly applies to determining whether an officer has reached a specified term limit. Does it also apply to determining whether a candidate meets a requirement that he must have served a specified number of terms in a previous position before election?

2. Assume the bylaws say that a candidate for a particular office must have served a specified number of terms in another office before the beginning of the term for the office the candidate is seeking. Assume further that a member does not meet that requirement at the beginning of the term for a particular office, and someone else is elected. That office later becomes vacant, and the previously disqualified candidate has then served the requisite number of terms (by applying the “more than half-a-term counts as a full term” provision). Is the candidate now eligible to be elected or appointed to fill the vacancy, even though the term for that office actually began several months previously?

I think the answer to both of these questions is yes.  I gather that  2 is an example of the situation you describe in 1.  In 2, at the time the vacancy in the "particular office" is to be filed, the "previously disqualified candidate" is qualified, having, as you say "served the requisite number of terms" in the qualifying office (by applying the rule in 47:4}.

On 10/1/2024 at 4:05 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

3. Assume that an ineligible member nevertheless is elected or appointed. At a later meeting, a Point of Order is raised that the election is null and void due to the member’s ineligibility, and the chair rules the point well taken. Then there is an appeal of the chair’s ruling. May the member in question vote on the appeal?

I think so.  Persons in office are assumed to be validly holding their office until it is finally established that they are not qualified to do so.

 

On 10/1/2024 at 4:05 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

4. Would the answer to question 3 be different if the chair’s ruling was that the point was not well taken?
 

No.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 10/1/2024 at 6:48 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I gather that  2 is an example of the situation you describe in 1.  In 2, at the time the vacancy in the "particular office" is to be filed, the "previously disqualified candidate" is qualified, having, as you say "served the requisite number of terms" in the qualifying office (by applying the rule in 47:4}.

Do you think this is so, even though the byelaws say that the qualification must exist at the beginning of the term, when the vacancy occurs well after the beginning of the term (which occurred at the close of the election meeting)?

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/1/2024 at 8:54 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

Do you think this is so, even though the byelaws say that the qualification must exist at the beginning of the term, when the vacancy occurs well after the beginning of the term (which occurred at the close of the election meeting)?

I assumed, incorrectly I see, that the bylaws require that a candidate meet the specified eligibility requirement at the time of his election, which I think is almost universally the case. 

Now that you call my attention to the fact that these bylaws require that a candidate to fill a vacancy must be someone who would have met the specified eligibility requirement at the beginning of the term of the vacancy he is seeking to fill, that changes things.  

So now I would say that the answer to 2 is no.  The answers to 3 and 4 remain the same.