Guest Michael Posted September 30, 2010 at 06:11 PM Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 at 06:11 PM Can a person, under Roberts rules of order, run for more than one office at the same time (or on the same day)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted September 30, 2010 at 06:13 PM Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 at 06:13 PM Yes, RONR, pp. 425-426 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael Posted September 30, 2010 at 06:23 PM Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 at 06:23 PM So a person can run for President and Secretary and Treasurer all at the same time. And once get elected to one office, decline the other two(if elected for those as well) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted September 30, 2010 at 06:26 PM Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 at 06:26 PM So a person can run for President and Secretary and Treasurer all at the same time. And once get elected to one office, decline the other two(if elected for those as well)Yes, although nothing in RONR prohibits the same person from serving in more than one office. Your rules may vary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted September 30, 2010 at 06:27 PM Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 at 06:27 PM 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 More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted September 30, 2010 at 09:50 PM Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 at 09:50 PM 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 More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted September 30, 2010 at 09:54 PM Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 at 09:54 PM 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 More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted September 30, 2010 at 10:19 PM Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 at 10:19 PM . . . 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 More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted September 30, 2010 at 10:23 PM Report Share Posted September 30, 2010 at 10:23 PM 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.