running for an office while currently in another

[Guest Kerry Henderson]

Can a member of an organization run for an office while currently holding another position? Specifically, if an individual is elected to a three year term as a board member, can he then run for President the following year with two years left on his board term?

[Chris Harrison]

Can a member of an organization run for an office while currently holding another position? Specifically, if an individual is elected to a three year term as a board member, can he then run for President the following year with two years left on his board term?

Nothing in RONR prohibits it.

[hmtcastle]

And nothing in RONR would prevent him from being both a board member and the president.

[Guest Kerry Henderson]

And nothing in RONR would prevent him from being both a board member and the president.

[Guest Kerry Henderson]

That was my conclusion also,but I didn't find anything concrete that someone could. I need to have my facts straight when it come time to "debate" with some of the "authorities" in our Org.

[Chris Harrison]

That was my conclusion also,but I didn't find anything concrete that someone could. I need to have my facts straight when it come time to "debate" with some of the "authorities" in our Org.

If any of these "authorities" try to say that someone can't be a Board member and President at the same time or must resign one office in order to run for the other tell them you are "from Missouri" and ask them to show you where the rule is that supports their position.

[Guest Kerry Henderson]

If any of these "authorities" try to say that someone can't be a Board member and President at the same time or must resign one office in order to run for the other tell them you are "from Missouri" and ask them to show you where the rule is that supports their position.

[Guest Kerry Henderson]

Good advice I'll that in mind! Thank you.

[Tim Wynn]

Good advice I'll that in mind! Thank you.

See RONR(10th ed.), p. 425, l. 33 - p. 426, l. 2.

[Gary Novosielski]

And nothing in RONR would prevent him from being both a board member and the president.

While it's true that RONR does not, strictly speaking, prohibit the practice, it does note that many if not most organizations tend to take a dim view of it, either by custom or in their bylaws.

But there's no need to worry about that unless you win. And running for office while holding another is a fairly common practice.

[Chris Harrison]

While it's true that RONR does not, strictly speaking, prohibit the practice, it does note that many if not most organizations tend to take a dim view of it, either by custom or in their bylaws.

If it is just custom that members don't serve in more than one office at a time (nothing in the bylaws say this) would that custom need to fall to the ground as soon as a member objects to the custom via Point of Order? I would say so because although pp. 425-426 says that it is "understood" by most organizations that a member can only serve in one capacity at a time RONR earlier says "strictly speaking, there is no prohibition against a person's holding more than one office" which would seem to trigger the rule on RONR per p. 17 lines 7-15 (even if in the strictest sense).

I can see how it could be argued that the understanding could be considered to be a custom, but having it stipulated that it is not prohibited to serve in more than one office muddies the waters where p. 17 is concerned. IMO, replacing the "understanding" with that it is often a custom that a member can only serve in one capacity at a time would clear up those waters real quick.

[Gary Novosielski]

If it is just custom that members don't serve in more than one office at a time (nothing in the bylaws say this) would that custom need to fall to the ground as soon as a member objects to the custom via Point of Order? I would say so because although pp. 425-426 says that it is "understood" by most organizations that a member can only serve in one capacity at a time RONR earlier says "strictly speaking, there is no prohibition against a person's holding more than one office" which would seem to trigger the rule on RONR per p. 17 lines 7-15 (even if in the strictest sense).

Custom falls to a written rule, but not to the absence of a rule.

That statement in RONR does not establish a rule that authorizes people to hold multiple offices. It just points out that there is no strict prohibition against it, at least within the pages of RONR. That's a far cry from the sort of rule that would override long-standing custom.

And, as you point out, it's actually phrased the opposite way, which changes the tone considerably. To paraphrase liberally for effect:

It does not say: Sure, it's a "custom" in many organizations, but really there is no prohibition whatsoever.

What it says is: True, there's no strict prohibition in RONR, but there certainly is one widely understood to exist in many (most?) organizations.

While custom does fall to the ground in the face of a written rule, it can hardly be expected to fall in the face of a sentence such as that one, which if anything appears to confirm that such understandings are not only common, but persuasive, and probably enforceable.

In my view, this line is often (mis)interpreted as a blanket authorization allowing multiple-office holding even in assemblies that don't really believe in it, while it actually seems to affirm their intuitive understanding that this would probably be a bad idea.

[hmtcastle]

If it is just custom that members don't serve in more than one office at a time (nothing in the bylaws say this) would that custom need to fall to the ground as soon as a member objects to the custom via Point of Order? I would say so . . .

Custom falls to a written rule, but not to the absence of a rule.

While custom does fall to the ground in the face of a written rule, it can hardly be expected to fall in the face of a sentence such as that one, which if anything appears to confirm that such understandings are not only common, but persuasive, and probably enforceable.

I don't think a point of order is the appropriate vehicle for challenging a custom, but I suppose it could be used to challenge a departure from a custom. If a member is elected to two offices and chooses to serve in two offices, a point of order could then be raised. Mr. Novosielski would apparently (or at least probably) rule that the custom is "enforceable". I would rule that, since there's no rule that prohibits it, it's permitted.

Consider the very long-standing custom of no U.S. President serving more than two terms. That's as carved-in-stone a custom as there was, enshrined by no less a revered figured than George Washington. Yet that custom was insufficient in stopping FDR from running for and serving in a third (and fourth) term. Later, of course, the two-term limit really was, essentially, carved in stone.

[Josh Martin]

Custom falls to a written rule, but not to the absence of a rule.

But even in the case where a custom does not conflict with a written rule, the custom is adhered to unless a majority votes to do otherwise. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 17, lines 15-19) If a majority of the assembly elects a member to more than one office, then it seems clear the assembly has chosen to break from the custom. If the assembly feels strongly enough about members serving in multiple offices that it wishes to protect against the whims of a temporary majority, it must adopt a written rule on the matter. Custom is insufficient to halt the will of the majority.

[Gary Novosielski]

But even in the case where a custom does not conflict with a written rule, the custom is adhered to unless a majority votes to do otherwise. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 17, lines 15-19) If a majority of the assembly elects a member to more than one office, then it seems clear the assembly has chosen to break from the custom. If the assembly feels strongly enough about members serving in multiple offices that it wishes to protect against the whims of a temporary majority, it must adopt a written rule on the matter. Custom is insufficient to halt the will of the majority.

I agree with that principle completely.

However, I do not agree, if the majority of an assembly with such a custom elects a member to more than one office, that it is evidence that they wish to break from the custom. I think it is simply evidence that they think the member qualified for either office. No doubt they would be confident that, in keeping with their long-standing custom, the member so elected would then choose which office to accept, as would be customary in such cases.

If the members wish to break with this custom in the absence of a written rule, I think they need to express the will of the majority in a vote separate from the election, perhaps as an appeal from a point of order sustaining the custom, or by adopting a motion to encourage the double winner to accept both positions. Or--and this is so crazy that it just might work--passing a written rule stating their preference.

[Josh Martin]

I agree with that principle completely.

However, I do not agree, if the majority of an assembly with such a custom elects a member to more than one office, that it is evidence that they wish to break from the custom. I think it is simply evidence that they think the member qualified for either office. No doubt they would be confident that, in keeping with their long-standing custom, the member so elected would then choose which office to accept, as would be customary in such cases.

If the members wish to break with this custom in the absence of a written rule, I think they need to express the will of the majority in a vote separate from the election, perhaps as an appeal from a point of order sustaining the custom, or by adopting a motion to encourage the double winner to accept both positions. Or--and this is so crazy that it just might work--passing a written rule stating their preference.

If the assembly is so concerned about someone serving in multiple offices, the wise course of action would be to hold the elections separately, rather than all at once. I concede, however, that if the assembly failed to do so, there may be some ambiguity in what the assembly which has decided, which may need to be resolved by a separate vote.