Holding two seats in body

[Guest Darren]

I am the secretary (parliamentarian by default also) of an international board of directors for a non-profit classic car club (501c3). The membership consists of directors of regions (elected by local membership to represent designated territory) and at large directors (elected by total membership).

We had a regional director elected to at-large director’s seat several years ago, I was newer at secretary then, but I said he could not be on board holding two seats, he would have to resign as regional director to serve as an at-large director. He agreed and we have had this happen a couple times after that and they agreed to resign as regional director to hold at-large director’s seat. I remember seeing this concept of not holding two seats in same body, I thought it was in Robert’s Rule of Order, but I just scanned it and did not see it right off. I would explain it (rationalize it) like this. 1) a US Senator cannot also be a US Representative in Congress at the same time, 2) a member of a city or county council cannot be a councilor from two districts and hold two seats, 3) a member of a foundation board could not be an appointed director from two appointing authorities and have two votes. For that matter, with his belief, someone could run for at large seat in two election cycles (three year terms) and get elected and have two votes that way.

We have a regional director that appears to be running for an at-large seat and asked me for a citation from Roberts Rule of Order suggesting he cannot hold an at-large seat and regional seat at the same time. Does any one know of language in Roberts Rule of Order or other document that supports not holding two seats in a body (or language that suggests that is allowable). There is no specific language in the club’s constitution and/or by-laws on this subject (holding two seats by one person). Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

[hmtcastle]

Does any one know of language in Roberts Rule of Order or other document that supports not holding two seats in a body (or language that suggests that is allowable).

Nothing in RONR prohibits one person from holding more than one office.

And although logic would suggest that, if one is a director, one can't be elected to be "another" director, that's not a rule in RONR either. The relevant rule would be that, no matter how many hats a member might wear, he still has only one vote. But even that rule could be superseded by your own rules.

And I'm afraid that your analogies to the U.S. Congress, your municipality, and some imaginary foundation are immaterial. Your organization is not bound the rules of other organizations.

[Gary Novosielski]

I remember seeing this concept of not holding two seats in same body, I thought it was in Robert’s Rule of Order, but I just scanned it and did not see it right off.

...

Does any one know of language in Roberts Rule of Order or other document that supports not holding two seats in a body (or language that suggests that is allowable). There is no specific language in the club’s constitution and/or by-laws on this subject (holding two seats by one person). Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

RONR points out that, strictly speaking, there is no rule against holding two offices, but it also notes that most organizations do not allow it, and some go so far as to put it in their bylaws.

You could say it is commonly prohibited "by rule or custom".

In your case, your organization has apparently, for years, been enforcing this "custom" (because you have said it's not one of your rules).

The rules in RONR about customs say that if they conflict with a written rule, as soon as someone raises a point of order, the custom falls to the ground, and the rule must be enforced. But you have no rule, and RONR doesn't either.

So, if there is no written rule, RONR says that your customs are to be given substantial weight, and can be enforced to a degree, but if someone disagrees, the custom can be ended by a majority vote.

So that's where you are. As long as a majority of your membership believes that people holding multiple offices is not allowed, it's not. As soon as they believe it is, it is. If you want to make sure it's thoroughly prohibited, you should be one of those organizations that goes so far as to put it in your bylaws.

But in no case does anyone get two votes because they wear two hats. That would require bylaws language, because that would violate RONR. One person one vote is a pretty basic principle of parliamentary law.

[Guest Darren]

Nothing in RONR prohibits one person from holding more than one office.

And although logic would suggest that, if one is a director, one can't be elected to be "another" director, that's not a rule in RONR either. The relevant rule would be that, no matter how many hats a member might wear, he still has only one vote. But even that rule could be superseded by your own rules.

And I'm afraid that your analogies to the U.S. Congress, your municipality, and some imaginary foundation are immaterial. Your organization is not bound the rules of other organizations.

[Rob Elsman]

I am the secretary (parliamentarian by default also) of an international board of directors for a non-profit classic car club (501c3). The membership consists of directors of regions (elected by local membership to represent designated territory) and at large directors (elected by total membership).

We had a regional director elected to at-large director’s seat several years ago, I was newer at secretary then, but I said he could not be on board holding two seats, he would have to resign as regional director to serve as an at-large director. He agreed and we have had this happen a couple times after that and they agreed to resign as regional director to hold at-large director’s seat. I remember seeing this concept of not holding two seats in same body, I thought it was in Robert’s Rule of Order, but I just scanned it and did not see it right off. I would explain it (rationalize it) like this. 1) a US Senator cannot also be a US Representative in Congress at the same time, 2) a member of a city or county council cannot be a councilor from two districts and hold two seats, 3) a member of a foundation board could not be an appointed director from two appointing authorities and have two votes. For that matter, with his belief, someone could run for at large seat in two election cycles (three year terms) and get elected and have two votes that way.

We have a regional director that appears to be running for an at-large seat and asked me for a citation from Roberts Rule of Order suggesting he cannot hold an at-large seat and regional seat at the same time. Does any one know of language in Roberts Rule of Order or other document that supports not holding two seats in a body (or language that suggests that is allowable). There is no specific language in the club’s constitution and/or by-laws on this subject (holding two seats by one person). Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Membership is personal and cannot be multiplied. Thus a member can hold two offices simultaneously (e.g., treasurer and secretary), but he is still just one member of the board with one vote. RONR (10th ed.), p. 414, ll. 21-25.

[Josh Martin]

RONR points out that, strictly speaking, there is no rule against holding two offices, but it also notes that most organizations do not allow it, and some go so far as to put it in their bylaws.

You could say it is commonly prohibited "by rule or custom".

In your case, your organization has apparently, for years, been enforcing this "custom" (because you have said it's not one of your rules).

The rules in RONR about customs say that if they conflict with a written rule, as soon as someone raises a point of order, the custom falls to the ground, and the rule must be enforced. But you have no rule, and RONR doesn't either.

So, if there is no written rule, RONR says that your customs are to be given substantial weight, and can be enforced to a degree, but if someone disagrees, the custom can be ended by a majority vote.

So that's where you are. As long as a majority of your membership believes that people holding multiple offices is not allowed, it's not.

That's funny, I recall Mr. Mountcastle and I nipping that argument in the bud (with support from the Wrathful One).

It seems to me that, unless there is a prohibition in the Bylaws, the member is free to hold more than one office. In this particular case, however, there does not appear to be any point in doing so. I can't see any advantage to holding two director positions, since the positions presumably have identical authority and the member would still have only one vote.

[Gary Novosielski]

That's funny, I recall Mr. Mountcastle and I nipping that argument in the bud (with support from the Wrathful One).

It seems to me that, unless there is a prohibition in the Bylaws, the member is free to hold more than one office. In this particular case, however, there does not appear to be any point in doing so. I can't see any advantage to holding two director positions, since the positions presumably have identical authority and the member would still have only one vote.

No, this is different.

In this case there is an established custom. It can be overturned by a majority, of course, like all other customs with no rule behind them. But it can't be overturned by one lone member who wants to hold two positions, unless the assembly supports the idea.

DH's statement does not contradict this.

I think you've got this right. Nothing short of a bylaw provision can prohibit the assembly from electing a person to more than one office, if that's what the assembly wants to do.

Note, he did not say "if that's what the candidate wants to do".

I think that's consistent with what I said.

[hmtcastle]

In this case there is an established custom. It can be overturned by a majority, of course, like all other customs with no rule behind them.

The way you "overturn" a custom is by disregarding it. In this instance, by electing the same person to two offices. There needn't, and shouldn't, be a separate vote, prior to that, to overturn the custom.

[Josh Martin]

No, this is different.

In this case there is an established custom. It can be overturned by a majority, of course, like all other customs with no rule behind them. But it can't be overturned by one lone member who wants to hold two positions, unless the assembly supports the idea.

It would seem to me it is through the election that the assembly determines this, especially in this case.