CornelR

Thank you.

What about a situation where a non-members vote created a 7-6 win for a candidate for chair. And, it is now 5 months since that happened. Can a motion be introduced to hold a new election since there would presumably have been a tie which would have necessitated further votes to determine a winner those 5 months ago?

Thank you all. We had this pegged correctly. Hopefully the committee can rectify the situation. Your clear answers will help immensely.

Agreed. I pointed that out to them as well. It has just become focused only on the violation of the notice bylaw.

Earlier I mentioned a central committee violating their bylaws. The situation proceeded as follows: At the June regular meeting, the current chairman let the committee know that he would be resigning August 1 and that at the next regular meeting in July they would elect the new chair. This satisfied the seven days notice referenced in section 9 below, although it does violate the requirement for the vice chair to assume the duties and give seven days notice within 30 days. At that meeting, the chairman ran the meeting, this was objected to. Upon electing a new chair, they then proceeded to suspend the rules for notice because the vice chair was elevated to chair and his office had to be replaced. Section 11 requires notice to be given for that election. They then proceeded to suspend the rules again because they had to elect a new State committeeman because he was elevated to a different position. It would be those two offices that they elected that we believe violated the requirement to give notice. And it was that notice requirement that was suspended. Strictly speaking, of course the rule for the Vice Chairman to give notice to replace a resigned share was also violated. The chair gave that notice and then ran the meeting. He wasn't to resign for I believe another week after this meeting was held. So there is the issue that he was still the chair for another week even after they elected a new chair that evening. These are ancillary issues though. I actually provided them an entire affidavit detailing all the numerous violations that occurred in that meeting but this seems to be the one that has become the focus of the situation. So, the real question is, since we know the officers will legally elected, do they keep their positions or should another meeting be called for a proper election of officers? Relevant bylaws: Section 9: If the office of the County Chairman becomes vacant, by reason of resignation, death or otherwise, the Vice Chairman shall assume all duties of the Chairman and, within thirty (30) days after giving at least seven (7) days notice, call a Central Committee meeting for the purpose of electing a new County Chairman. If the Vice Chairman does not call such meeting within thirty (30) days, the State Chairman shall call a county Central Committee meeting with seven (7) days notice, for the purpose of electing a new County Chairman Section 10: If the office of State Committeeman, State Committeewoman or State Youth Committeeperson becomes vacant, by reason of death or otherwise, the County Chairman shall, within thirty (30) days after giving at least seven (7) days notice call a County Central Committee meeting for the purpose of filing such vacancy. Section 11: If the office of Vice Chairman, secretary or treasurer becomes vacant because of resignation, death or otherwise, the county chairman shall, within thirty (30) days and after giving at least seven (7) days notice, call a County Central Committee meeting for the purpose of filling the vacancy.

I was asked about a bylaw violation that no one objected to. Is it true that if a bylaw is violated by someone suspending that bylaw (which cannot be done), and no one objects, then whatever transpires in the way of motions and other business proceeding from the violated bylaw stands? Or worded differently, is any part of a meetings business invalidated by that business being completed as a result of suspending a bylaw. They did not give me a lot of detail and I can go back and get some more if necessary, but generally speaking their concern is, if business was conducted specifically resulting from suspending a bylaw, is that business valid? I understand that if no one objected to it then the results stand even though it violated a bylaw.

A group send out a special meeting notice appropriate to their bylaws. Subsequent to that, they discovered that the room was not available for the meeting. Another room has come available in another building next door 70 yards away. Can they simply direct people to that room or do they need to abandon that meeting and send out notice for a new meeting using the appropriate language and time? In other words do they need to schedule a new special meeting a week out. This meeting was scheduled a week out originally but the change of location only became evident yesterday. The meeting is the day after tomorrow. Can they have it with someone directing traffic? Or again, do they need to reschedule it for a week out.

Got it! Thank you.

Thank you for the help. I will forward this to the State party.

The meetings were all properly called, they were just not in the required 3 day window.

Sorry I have been unavailable. the original meetings were properly called but were not in the permissible 3 day window.

Good morning all, We have an interesting situation here in Idaho with the primary which is actually today. First a few details. In Idaho, as in many states, we have what are known as precinct committeemen or in some states precinct captains who are responsible to keep the people in their precinct informed about political issues and candidates. They are elected every two years in the primary by the electorate. Their term runs from eight days after the date of election through eight days after the succeeding election. So, for example, any precinct committeemen who are elected today in our primary will not take office for eight more days. This means that the current sitting precinct committeemen are still able to do the business of the party. Every two years, each Central committee holds what is called a reorganization meeting primarily for the purpose of electing new officers, and every four years that reorganization meeting includes election of delegates to the state convention as well as election of new officers. That is the situation this year. The incumbent chairman of the County Central committee, legislative district committee, and region committee is required to call a meeting for their respective reorganization meeting. When he/she calls for the meeting, they must specify a date, time, and place and not only apprise the members but they must place a press release in the paper of record for the county or counties as needed. The meeting has to happen based on several different requirements in the state rules but it basically must be done in a window of three days starting eight days after the primary and ending 11 days after the primary for all but the region committee. This year, the state sent out their normal reminder but their instructions were not as specific as they should have been and many incumbent chairmen of the counties and legislative districts called their meetings for less than eight days after the election. There is some concern that this was done intentionally for reasons which I will not go into here. My concern is advising the chairman of the respective committees of a bulletproof method for fixing this. Here is what I have come up with and I would like your parliamentary opinion as to its suitability. I encouraged the chairman to go ahead and have the meeting on the date assigned and then assuming they have a quorum, amend the agenda and set a new date within the three-day window, or simply recess to the three-day window. I believe this will solve the problem and prevent the counties and legislative districts from having their corrected meeting invalidated for not following state rules. This procedure would I believe, satisfy the state rules and parliamentary procedure for correcting the problem. One concern that came up was what if a quorum was not achieved at the noticed meeting? Based on Roberts Rules section 40:7, could not the assembly recess to the three-day window or set the time to adjourn at an hour late in one of the days within the three-day window? Which would be the best method for setting a correct date given the strange parameters? Thank you for your help on this.

Thank you for all the help on this issue.

That's the rub. This has been done and the chair will not call the meeting.

Understood. What they are asking is how to call the special meeting in the first place.