Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Election of Officers Suspension


JDee

Recommended Posts

Hello All,  I have a question as to whether or not an additional language to suspend an election of officers is needed or legit if your bylaws stated election of officers shall take place at a specific time each year.  Better can an organization include additional language in its bylaws to address suspension of election tell a later date if the bylaws already states election must take place at a specific time each year? Do the specific language needs to be revised in order for the suspension can be added?

Thank you

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, JDee said:

Members of my organization would like to have to right to suspend an election (let's say instead of having an election in November, we can suspend it until December or so on). but there's a current language said it shall take place in november

No, but while the election is pending in November, your group can establish and adjourned meeting to take place before the next regular meeting in December and then postpone the election to that adjourned meeting.  See RONR (11th ed.), p. 242ff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, JDee said:

I don't understand why motion to adjourn should be used..... can't we just put new language in bylaws to suspend any election if we feel the candidates are not up to par thus will provide with enough time to look at other potential candidates?

It's not a motion to adjourn. It's establishing an adjourned meeting which in essence is a continuation of the November meeting.  I suggest you read the cited pages.  If your group wants to adopt bylaw language to help with whatever the problem is, that's fine, but until they do, an adjourned meeting is an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understanding we can adjourn a meeting but my question was pertaining as to whether or not we can include bylaws language to suspend an election thus giving us the option needed when a situation arises when the members on the ballot are not suitable or something happen and a member on the ballot is being investigated.  I hope I am more clear now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, JDee said:

I understanding we can adjourn a meeting

Once again, please read the cited pages.

40 minutes ago, JDee said:

my question was pertaining as to whether or not we can include bylaws language to suspend an election thus giving us the option needed when a situation arises when the members on the ballot are not suitable or something happen and a member on the ballot is being investigated.  

Of course

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JDee said:

I understanding we can adjourn a meeting but my question was pertaining as to whether or not we can include bylaws language to suspend an election thus giving us the option needed when a situation arises when the members on the ballot are not suitable or something happen and a member on the ballot is being investigated.  I hope I am more clear now...

JDee, what Mr. Mervosh is suggesting is exactly what RONR (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition) says to do if for some reason the society desires to "postpone" the elections.  A motion to set an "adjourned meeting" is not the same thing as simply adjourning.  An "adjourned meeting" is, in essence, the continuation of the same meeting on a future date. I will cite the applicable provision from page 185 of RONR below, as I suspect you do not have a copy of it:

"POSTPONEMENT OF A SUBJECT THAT THE BYLAWS SET FOR A PARTICULAR SESSION. A matter that the bylaws require to be attended to at a specified session, such as the election of officers, cannot, in advance and through a main motion, be postponed to another session. It can be taken up at any time when it is in order during the specified session (that is, either as originally convened or at any adjournment of it); and it can be postponed to an adjourned meeting in the manner explained above, after first adopting, if necessary, a motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn. The adjourned meeting, as already stated, is a continuation of the same session. The procedure of postponing such a matter to an adjourned meeting is sometimes advisable, as in an annual meeting for the election of officers on a stormy night when, although a quorum is present, the attendance is abnormally small.

If the matter has actually been taken up during the specified session as required, it also may be postponed beyond that session in accordance with the regular rules for the motion to Postpone. It is usually unwise to do so, however, unless completing it during the session proves impossible or impractical."

As stated in the last paragraph of the quote above, you do have another option besides setting an adjourned meeting.  You can simply postpone the elections to the next regular meeting (or to a special meeting), but if you are going to follow RONR, you must first actually take up the elections at the specified meeting and then have a member make a motion to postpone the completion of the elections until the next meeting. 

To first take up the elections at the meeting specified in the bylaws, the chair simply announces that "the election of officers is now the next order of business" or "The election of officers is now before the assembly".  At that time, the elections are then before the assembly and any member can move to postpone the elections to the next meeting (provided it is within a quarterly time interval).  The motion to postpone the elections cannot technically made until the elections are actually pending, that is, when the election is actually the item of business before the assembly.  It cannot be moved before you get to that point in your order of business.  It's the rule because your bylaws say the elections MUST be taken up at that particular meeting. So, you must take them up.  You just don't have to complete them at that time.

Understand now?  Maybe?  :)

 

Edited by Richard Brown
Typographical corrections
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, JDee said:

Now that we are about to review our bylaws, I much rather put the language for suspension  in our bylaws. is that permissible according to RROR? if so how can I go about doing so?

It's certainly permissible, since your bylaws take precedence over RONR. We do not provide advice for writing bylaws on this forum, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alexis Hunt said:

.

 . . . We do not provide advice for writing bylaws on this forum, however.

Oh, but we do.  Quite often , in fact. :)

I would advise JDee to think long and hard before putting such language in the bylaws. As Mr. Mervosh and I have already pointed out, RONR already provides a method for postponing an election when necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JDee said:

Thank you very much Richard...I will definitely discuss Mr, Mervosh RONR directive with our committee.  If they choose otherwise, how should go about including in our bylaws...I guess first order would be to amend the specific time language...?

I would think so.

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Oh, but we do.  Quite often , in fact. :)

I would advise JDee to think long and hard before putting such language in the bylaws. As Mr. Mervosh and I have already pointed out, RONR already provides a method for postponing an election when necessary.

Well, there may be advantages to placing it in the bylaws. Perhaps the society wants to have the ability to A.) postpone the election before it is actually pending and/or B.) postpone the election beyond the next regular meeting (or beyond a quarterly time interval).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I would think so.

Well, there may be advantages to placing it in the bylaws. Perhaps the society wants to have the ability to A.) postpone the election before it is actually pending and/or B.) postpone the election beyond the next regular meeting (or beyond a quarterly time interval).


Agreed.  I'm concerned, though,  about them just looking for a way to get around having to have elections and let the people  currently in office just continue to serve.  But, if that's what they want . . . . :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Agreed.  I'm concerned, though,  about them just looking for a way to get around having to have elections and let the people  currently in office just continue to serve.  But, if that's what they want . . . . :)

If that is what they want, then they certainly would need a bylaws-level rule. I am inclined, however, to take the OP at his word that the rule is intended to permit the society to postpone the election until suitable candidates can be found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...