Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

office


Guest Michael

Recommended Posts

The pages cited indicate there is no prohibition from holding more than one office (implying they can run for all they want), but it also says typically the member will choose which office he wants and the assembly will hold another election for the other office(s)he won since the elections would then be incomplete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't put my finger on a page citation for this, but a voice in my head tells me that RONR "suggests" (or some other optional-like term) that voting for each office up for election is held one at a time, from the highest to the lowest, as noted in the bylaws. Thus if your bylaws define officers as Pres, Vice-Pres, Sec and Treas, and they are all up for election, you would start at the Pres office and work your way down.

This helps avoid (if going lowest to highest, for example) someone getting elected to Secretary, and accepting, although hopeful to get the Big Chair nod and then when he does, decides to decline the Secretary office and now you have an incomplete election in that office. The high-to-low method means if Mr. A gets elected Pres, then he won't be sweating out the Secretary post, and you might avoid reballoting for the office.

Of course, your custom (or bylaws) may dictate a different process, but this one sounds like it makes some sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't put my finger on a page citation for this, but a voice in my head tells me that RONR "suggests" (or some other optional-like term) that voting for each office up for election is held one at a time, from the highest to the lowest, as noted in the bylaws. Thus if your bylaws define officers as Pres, Vice-Pres, Sec and Treas, and they are all up for election, you would start at the Pres office and work your way down.

This helps avoid (if going lowest to highest, for example) someone getting elected to Secretary, and accepting, although hopeful to get the Big Chair nod and then when he does, decides to decline the Secretary office and now you have an incomplete election in that office. The high-to-low method means if Mr. A gets elected Pres, then he won't be sweating out the Secretary post, and you might avoid reballoting for the office.

Of course, your custom (or bylaws) may dictate a different process, but this one sounds like it makes some sense.

You're probably thinking of RONR (10th ed.), p. 426, ll. 13-16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . from the highest to the lowest, as noted in the bylaws. Thus if your bylaws define officers as Pres, Vice-Pres, Sec and Treas, and they are all up for election, you would start at the Pres office and work your way down.

Though I think "first to last" (or, better yet, "in the order in which they are listed in the bylaws") might be preferable to "highest to the lowest" so as not to suggest, for example, that the office of vice-president is "higher" than the (essential) office of secretary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're probably thinking of RONR (10th ed.), p. 426, ll. 13-16.

Probably indeed. Thanks.

Though I think "first to last" (or, better yet, "in the order in which they are listed in the bylaws") might be preferable to "highest to the lowest" so as not to suggest, for example, that the office of vice-president is "higher" than the (essential) office of secretary.

Your point is well taken. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...