Election losers

[Blythe F.]

If someone who is a board member runs for an officer position and loses the election do they automatically return to their board position? We have pretty good, clear bylaws, but there is not clear cut direction on this.

Historically, for 60 years, we have allowed a person to move up from the board to run for officer, but we have always considered their remaining board position now open and have included it as an open position for the annual election and placed nominees for the position on the slate. If the nominee for officer loses....they just go back as a general member and there is now a new board member that finishes the forfeited board position term.

Recently a new member questioned this. They feel that the person who lost the bid for officer should automatically return to their old position. If they win, then they feel that it be treated like a mid-term vacancy and the newly elected officers/board appoint a person to fill the remaining term.

We can find nothing to define this for us. Have we been violating something and didn't know it? Do we continue the practice as a custom? Please help.

[Gary c Tesser]

If Robert's Rules governs, then the person does not have to leave his or her board membership in the first place. Robert's Rules does not prohibit anyone from holding two (or more) positions. So if the board membership and the office are distinctly different positions, or offices, then the board member can stay a board member when running for an office; and he or she can keep the board membership if he wins the office also; and keeps the board position if he loses the election for the office (p. 425 - 426).

This will supersede your custom of 60 years: the written rule trumps any custom (RONR, 10th Ed., p. 17). If the organization really does not want to allow people to hold board memberships at the same time as offices, the organization should amend its bylaws to prohibit it.

It might be easier, if everyone respects the custom, for candidates to simply resign their board memberships when running for offices: as soon as the resignations are accepted, the board seats are vacant.

I disagree about the mid-term vacancy idea. But your organization makes your organization's rules, not me. (Um, maybe "not I." Two in the morning, what do you want outta me for pete's sake, and at $4.50 an hour?

(Calm down, Gary.)

[hmtcastle]

Have we been violating something and didn't know it?

Yes.

Do we continue the practice as a custom?

No.

As Mr. Tesser noted, the board member running for an officer's position never left his board seat so there's nothing to "return" to.

You might remind your members that U.S. Senators often run for the office of U.S. President (or Vice-president). If they're unsuccessful, they continue serving as a Senator (and they never stopped serving as a Senator).

[Guest Guest]

In your organization, who elects the officers - the board or the membership?

If it is the board, then perhaps you have (in some degree) a common structure where the members elect the board members (often with 2 or 3 year staggered terms) and then, each year, the board elects officers from among the board members. Officers continue to be board members for their board term.

[Josh Martin]

They feel that the person who lost the bid for officer should automatically return to their old position.

Well, they don't "return" because they never left the position in the first place. If the board member has time left on his term he continues to serve.

If they win, then they feel that it be treated like a mid-term vacancy and the newly elected officers/board appoint a person to fill the remaining term.

That seems more accurate, provided that the board member resigns from his board position. Since it's "one man, one vote," there's not really any advantage to keeping his board position if he wins, so I suspect this is likely.

Have we been violating something and didn't know it? Do we continue the practice as a custom?

Yes, you've been violating the rules without realizing it, and no, the practice should be halted immediately.

[Gary Novosielski]

If someone who is a board member runs for an officer position and loses the election do they automatically return to their board position? We have pretty good, clear bylaws, but there is not clear cut direction on this.

Historically, for 60 years, we have allowed a person to move up from the board to run for officer, but we have always considered their remaining board position now open and have included it as an open position for the annual election and placed nominees for the position on the slate. If the nominee for officer loses....they just go back as a general member and there is now a new board member that finishes the forfeited board position term.

Recently a new member questioned this. They feel that the person who lost the bid for officer should automatically return to their old position. If they win, then they feel that it be treated like a mid-term vacancy and the newly elected officers/board appoint a person to fill the remaining term.

We can find nothing to define this for us. Have we been violating something and didn't know it? Do we continue the practice as a custom? Please help.

There are actually two issues here, and one of them would be more amenable to being treated as a custom than the other. But the best case is always to include exceptions in your bylaws and not rely on group memory.

The first issue is whether someone has to resign one office in order to run for, or be nominated for, or even be elected to, another office. RONR is quite clear on this: the answer is No. There is no such requirement. It happens all the time in public elections. US Senators commonly run for president (2008 comes to mind) and if they win, they resign from the Senate, but if they don't, they remain. There's a guy named McCain who did that, as I recall.

Of course just because they lose the election doesn't mean they "get their job back" automatically. If their term in the old job was expiring anyway, then they would not, unless they ran for both offices, and won their old seat back. That's perfectly fine with RONR too. And if their term was not up, then it's not even a case of getting the job "back" because they never left it!

So, if you have a custom that forces someone to resign, or removes them from office just because they're running for something else, that custom falls before the ink on the page.

But there's the second issue, and this one may be enforceable by custom: Your organization may, by rule or custom, not permit someone to hold two offices if actually elected to more than one. If that's the case in your organization (and it is probably true in most, even if not in always the bylaws), then the the person so elected may choose which office to accept, and decline the other(s). The assembly does not get to force the choice upon them.

Even that policy really should be in the bylaws to avoid trouble, and anything that varies from RONR at all also needs to go in there. Or you could just follow RONR and be sure that what you're doing is eminently reasonable.

[hmtcastle]

that custom falls before the ink on the page.

Or lack of ink on the page. The long-standing, time-honored, virtually sanctified custom of U.S. Presidents serving no more than two terms fell to the electorate's desire to keep FDR in office.

But there's the second issue, and this one may be enforceable by custom . . .

The way to "enforce" a custom is to maintain it. Voluntarily. It's the old spouse-on-board situation. If you don't like it, elect someone else. Don't rely on the custom of never having spouses serve on the board together.