Whether you CAN do this depends on your bylaws, but, basically it's not a good idea. A "best practice" would be to keep these offices separate to preserve some of the checks and balances.
At one time, we had a married couple as President/Treasurer. Due to problems, we needed to take a hard look at these issues and tighten controls when we created our new bylaws. Consquently, ours state that two members of the same household can't both serve as officers. (Nor could the one person hold two offices.) The principle is somewhat the same, so bear with me.
However, we didn't want to back ourselves totally into a corner, so we added a proviso that the Board could overrule this with certain vote (2/3?).
If we were in a situation where we just didn't have any choice, we would add controls. In your case, you'd want a second signature on all checks. (Good idea, anyway) and you'd want a different officer to review the accounts and keep an eye the month to month financials (beyond the yearly audit). You want not only to minimize the risk of mismanagement of funds, you want to avoid the PERCEPTION that this could easily happen.
Find another way if at all possible. If not, then just be very open about it. "We don't want to do this, but there's no other choice. These are the extra precautions we'll take, and this plan has been approved by the Board."
And keep in mind, controls like this should not be considered an insult to the officer. They should be a routine part of doing business. Additionally, they can serve as protection for that officer's reputation (if they followed).
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: JHB ]</p>