Officer Removal

[Guest Allison]

Hi All,

I currently advise an organization that follows Robert's Rules (as best we can.) Last week, our new executive board was sworn in to office, however, yesterday it was brought to our attention that one of these new officers failed to meet eligibility requirements to hold office (this new officer's membership in our organization is even on the line.) As per our constitution the officer will be asked to resign. HOWEVER, this person ran on a "ticket" with another person to serve as Co-Chairs for the position. Because their election to office was predicated on their abilities to carry out the responsibilities as a team, does this mean that the other Co-Chair should also be asked to step down and a new election held? Or should the remaining Chairperson be able to keep the position? There's no specification in our constitution for this situation.

Any insights would be helpful.

Thanks.

[hmtcastle]

Because their election to office was predicated on their abilities to carry out the responsibilities as a team, does this mean that the other Co-Chair should also be asked to step down and a new election held? Or should the remaining Chairperson be able to keep the position?

Unless your bylaws provide for co-chairs (and they shouldn't), you don't have them. The general rule is one person per office. No sharing. So it looks like you've got all the chairperson you need.

In any case, if you elected someone who is ineligible to hold office, there's no need for him to resign (as if he had a choice), just make a point of order to the effect that he's ineligible.

[jstackpo]

RONR argues (strongly) against co-anythings, for reasons just like the problem you are now having.

And RONR doesn't offer advice - for obvious reasons.

[Gary Novosielski]

RONR argues (strongly) against co-anythings, for reasons just like the problem you are now having.

And RONR doesn't offer advice - for obvious reasons.

Well, in this case RONR actually does offer advice, and that advice (strongly advised) is not to have co-anythings. It's possible to have them if you really want to, but the practice is very strongly deprecated and, by the way, RONR is absolutely right.

But there is only one way to have them, and here's the hard-and-fast rule part: Unless you specifically allow for co-office holders in your bylaws, in black and white, then you cannot have them at all, and even if you think you elected them, you do not have them.

So you need to check your bylaws carefully, and see what they say.

And even if they're allowed in your bylaws, you'll have to hope that there are also rules in there about what to do in situations like this, because RONR, having prohibited the practice, has no need of further rules about it.

[Josh Martin]

Well, in this case RONR actually does offer advice, and that advice (strongly advised) is not to have co-anythings. It's possible to have them if you really want to, but the practice is very strongly deprecated and, by the way, RONR is absolutely right.

I'm sure what Dr. Stackpole means is that, unsurprisingly, RONR doesn't have much advice for what to do when you ignore RONR's advice.

I would say, however, that if the organization's rules unwisely provide for Co-Chairs, I don't believe that the other Co-Chair would lose his office due to his partner's ineligibility, unless there was some rule which suggested he would.