incompatable offices

[Guest Kathleen]

Is there a restriction about running for a councilor and an alternate councolor. It is possible to be elected to both. The problem being that an alternate would replace a councilor when the councilor can not attend a meetin. The bylaws are silent.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Is there a restriction about running for a councilor and an alternate councilor?

It is possible to be elected to both?

The problem being that an alternate would replace a councilor when the councilor can not attend a meeting. The bylaws are silent.

According to The Book, there is no parliamentary rule to prevent one person from holding any number of offices. Even pairs of offices where one succeeds to the other (vacant) office.

Thus, THERE IS NO RESTRICTION within Robert's Rules of Order.

However, The Book adds that the organization itself may compel a winner of two offices to choose one office.

[Gary Novosielski]

However, The Book adds that the organization itself may compel a winner of two offices to choose one office.

And if he is not present, they may choose for him.

[Gary Novosielski]

Is there a restriction about running for a councilor and an alternate councolor. It is possible to be elected to both. The problem being that an alternate would replace a councilor when the councilor can not attend a meetin. The bylaws are silent.

However, the fact is that, as you note, an alternate is supposed to replace the primary office holder. Therefore, electing the same person to both offices would probably be considered absurd by the "reasonable person" test.

One of the principles of interpreting bylaws is that if interpreting them a certain way leads to an absurdity, it's probably the wrong way to interpret them.

[hmtcastle]

Is there a restriction about running for a councilor and an alternate councolor. It is possible to be elected to both.

Holding both offices would be analogous to being both president and vice-president. But there's no problem with "running" for both offices. Presumably one would rather be a councilor than an alternate councilor but being an alternate might be better than nothing.

[Josh Martin]

Is there a restriction about running for a councilor and an alternate councolor. It is possible to be elected to both.

There is nothing in RONR which would prohibit running for both offices or even holding both offices, although it would seem there is no legitimate reason to hold both. Presumably if a member is elected to both he would decline the alternate counselor position, and you would hold another election for that position.

One of the principles of interpreting bylaws is that if interpreting them a certain way leads to an absurdity, it's probably the wrong way to interpret them.

That is only true in case of a conflict, and interpreting the provision in a certain way leads to another provision being meaningless or absurd.

[Gary Novosielski]

That is only true in case of a conflict, and interpreting the provision in a certain way leads to another provision being meaningless or absurd.

And that is precisely the case here. On the one hand we have the bylaws (presumably) allowing a person, in general, to hold two offices, or at least not prohibiting it. But interpreting that provision as being universally applicable leads to another provision (the existence of alternates) being meaningless or absurd.

An alternate in this context is defined as one who is authorized to fill the position of another, who is absent. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that the general provision cannot be applied to the specific case of alternates without creating an absurdity. No person is capable of functioning in his own absence; hence, no person is eligible to be his own alternate.

[Josh Martin]

And that is precisely the case here. On the one hand we have the bylaws (presumably) allowing a person, in general, to hold two offices, or at least not prohibiting it. But interpreting that provision as being universally applicable leads to another provision (the existence of alternates) being meaningless or absurd.

An alternate in this context is defined as one who is authorized to fill the position of another, who is absent. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that the general provision cannot be applied to the specific case of alternates without creating an absurdity. No person is capable of functioning in his own absence; hence, no person is eligible to be his own alternate.

There is, however, nothing in RONR which suggests that someone cannot hold the positions of President and Vice President, even though as far as RONR is concerned, Vice President is simply a fancy title for "alternate."

[Gary Novosielski]

There is, however, nothing in RONR which suggests that someone cannot hold the positions of President and Vice President, even though as far as RONR is concerned, Vice President is simply a fancy title for "alternate."

There is nothing expressly prohibiting it, no. But I believe that it would be equally absurd.

[Gary Novosielski]

There is, however, nothing in RONR which suggests that someone cannot hold the positions of President and Vice President, even though as far as RONR is concerned, Vice President is simply a fancy title for "alternate."

There is nothing expressly prohibiting it, no. But I believe that it would be equally absurd.