grayduck Posted September 4, 2015 at 03:39 PM Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 at 03:39 PM I am the Motions and Elections Officer. We just had an election. Now I have two motions that I must decide if they can go to a general membership vote or not. One is about removing an executive member, the other is about voiding the results of an election and having a new one. Motion A: Motion for removal of elected executive member1. Can a motion move forward to remove an executive Member for his failure to perform duties in the previous term after they have just been re-elected to a new term that has already begun?and/or2. Can a motion move forward to remove that executive Member because of corrupt/illegal practices that may have influenced the result of that election even if the new term has begun? Motion B: Motion for a new electionI believe I have the answer for this one: the motion is invalid and can't move forward for a general vote because the motion for a revote was received almost three weeks after the election and two weeks into the new term. Chapter 12: "After the person elected to office assumes the position, it is too late to nullify an illegal election." But if I nullify the motion for a new election because of the timing of the motion, can I still address the illegality of the election? They seem intertwined. How can I void one motion but still address dereliction of duties and illegal practices that took place during the motion that I just voided? Basically, I want to know if I can let the motion for the removal of that accused executive move forward. And where in Roberts I can get the info to support my decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted September 4, 2015 at 04:02 PM Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 at 04:02 PM See FAQ #20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted September 4, 2015 at 04:24 PM Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 at 04:24 PM . . . where in Roberts I can get the info to support my decision. RONR has nothing to say about what a "Motions and Elections Officer" can or can't do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted September 4, 2015 at 04:28 PM Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 at 04:28 PM Thanks, but I don't see how that answers my question. This executive member claims that this motion for a vote cannot move forward because can't be removed from office for things he did in the previous term. Some of our members want to vote him out because of those actions in the previous term AND his illegal practices during the most recent election, which cannot be voided. I simply need to know if his claim is correct and I cannot let the motion go forward for a vote. Again, he claims we can't do this because he's already started the term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted September 4, 2015 at 04:31 PM Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 at 04:31 PM Again, he claims we can't do this because he's already started the term. There is no statute of limitations in RONR. A treasurer who stole money in 2013 can be disciplined (e.g. removed from office) even if he was re-elected in 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted September 4, 2015 at 04:34 PM Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 at 04:34 PM Our constitution states that... The duties of the Motions and Elections Officer for all motions shall be to receive motions from the membership that are;constitutional proposed and seconded by current members of NESTAThe duties of the Motions and Elections Officer for all motions shall beSo my task is to decide if a motion is constitutional or not, and/or whether it follows Robert's Rules. If so, I can let the motion proceed to a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted September 4, 2015 at 05:10 PM Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 at 05:10 PM It is ultimately up to your organization to interpret your constitution. Whether a motion for removal of an elected member is "constitutional" would depend on your constitution, how the terms of office are defined, and any procedures for removal from office (as noted in FAQ #20). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted September 4, 2015 at 05:21 PM Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 at 05:21 PM I like Edgars comment that there are no Statues of Limitations in RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 4, 2015 at 05:29 PM Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 at 05:29 PM Ahh, some thougnts. 1. To start with, unless my memory badly serves, there's nothing like "Chapter 12: "After the person elected to office assumes the position, it is too late to nullify an illegal election."" in Robert's Rules. Where did you get it from? As for voiding an election, see RONR, 11th Ed., p. 444 - 446. Shlinder, Note that Robert's Rules envisions such a process being done by the assembly, not an officer, so your bylaws must be interpreted to see how much of that would actually be exclusively your job. 2. To figure out what you can or can't do, someone would have to know what comes after "... The duties of the Motions and Elections Officer for all motions shall be" . But that ventures into interpreting your bylaws, which we can't authoritatively do over the Internet. Just as with the question of whether something is constitutional or not: that requires carefully reading your constitution and your bylaws (if you have both; if you don't, then reading all that you do have), and we can't do that on this forum. Thanks, but I don't see how that answers my question. This executive member claims that this motion for a vote cannot move forward because ... 3. Shlinder, regardless of this member's reasoning, if the organization (or you individually, if you have that duty and authority under the bylaws) chooses to institute disciplinary procedures against him, how can he stop you? (He can yammer, and protest, and bleat, and mewl; and you can ignore him.) This is where, with regard to removing an officer, Mr.Hieu H. Huynh's referring you to FAQ #20 comes in. 4. Finally, since we can only guess whether "executive member" means an officer, or a member of the board, or whether those are equivalent (often they're not), or something else, maybe your organization should stop using the term. Sure, it sounds highfalutin', so it strokes the egos of those elected. But maybe that's part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted September 4, 2015 at 06:40 PM Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 at 06:40 PM Motion A: Motion for removal of elected executive member1. Can a motion move forward to remove an executive Member for his failure to perform duties in the previous term after they have just been re-elected to a new term that has already begun?and/or2. Can a motion move forward to remove that executive Member because of corrupt/illegal practices that may have influenced the result of that election even if the new term has begun?The fact that the failure to perform duties and the corrupt/illegal practices predate the member's current term would not make the motion out of order.Motion B: Motion for a new electionI believe I have the answer for this one: the motion is invalid and can't move forward for a general vote because the motion for a revote was received almost three weeks after the election and two weeks into the new term. Chapter 12: "After the person elected to office assumes the position, it is too late to nullify an illegal election."But if I nullify the motion for a new election because of the timing of the motion, can I still address the illegality of the election? They seem intertwined. How can I void one motion but still address dereliction of duties and illegal practices that took place during the motion that I just voided?For starters, it's not necessarily too late to nullify the election. I don't know where you got that statement from, but in RONR, some breaches are so severe that they constitute a continuing breach. A Point of Order regarding such violations can occur at any time during the continuation of the breach. We'd have to know more about what was alleged to have been done wrong to know if the election could be ruled invalid at this time.Even if it's too late to challenge the validity of the election, however, that does not mean that those responsible cannot be disciplined for the practices in question.This executive member claims that this motion for a vote cannot move forward because can't be removed from office for things he did in the previous term. Some of our members want to vote him out because of those actions in the previous term AND his illegal practices during the most recent election, which cannot be voided. I simply need to know if his claim is correct and I cannot let the motion go forward for a vote.Again, he claims we can't do this because he's already started the term.No rule in RONR prevents a society from removing an officer for actions taken prior to the start of his current term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted September 5, 2015 at 12:15 AM Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 at 12:15 AM The reference to Roberts Rules comes from the very bottom item on this page regarding "taking a recount". http://westsidetoastmasters.com/resources/roberts_rules/chap12.html There are 7 other duties for the MEO, but they relate to posting motions, setting up the election, announcing results, etc. Nothing significant. The item in our constitution is that I must receive and put forward only constitutional items. This means that if I deem a motion inappropriate, I can withhold it from a vote. This is how our association reads that responsibility of mine. It is in my power to allow a vote on the motion or not. I apologize for my wording of Executive Member, he is the Treasurer. It is a one year term Josh, the basically true accusations during the vote had to do with a) denying existing members the right to vote, inappropriately using the membership list to promote himself while not giving access to the other nominees the same ability, in fact shutting them out, c) making the voting rolls unavailable for examination, d) creating "ghost" members to vote for him, etc. Basically rigging the election. Does this qualify as "so severe" to designate a continuing breach? Can your refer me to the lines in RONR that define breaches? By the way, I really appreciate all of your thoughts on this. This is very helpful because I am new, inexperienced at this and have entered this position at the last moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted September 5, 2015 at 12:36 AM Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 at 12:36 AM I would not rely on that reference on Robert's Rules since it contains errors. In the right book, continuing breaches are described on page 251. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted September 5, 2015 at 12:40 AM Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 at 12:40 AM What are the errors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted September 5, 2015 at 01:01 AM Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 at 01:01 AM One error is that the statement "After the person elected to office assumes the position, it is too late to nullify an illegal election" is not accurate. Since that website is not maintained by the Robert's Rules Association, other information on that website may also be incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted September 5, 2015 at 01:02 AM Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 at 01:02 AM I'm sorry, I don't have the book. What is the article and point discussed on page 251? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted September 5, 2015 at 01:14 AM Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 at 01:14 AM Official Interpretation 2006-6 may be helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted September 5, 2015 at 01:52 AM Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 at 01:52 AM Hieu. I think that reference may hit the nail on the head. It's note about one votes' impact on an outcome on the election is also significant. Our vote was 103 to 97. The accusation is that enough members were blocked that could have affected that outcome. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted September 5, 2015 at 02:33 AM Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 at 02:33 AM Hieu, is the statement I referenced earlier from that Toastmasters link that is supposed to be from Robert's only invalid only because it is not in the new Right Rules? Where do you think it might have come from, a previous version? They seem so certain it's in Robert's and present is as so.Also, you said it was inaccurate. How so? I need to know because some officers will certainly refer to it to call my decision to let the motion move forward out of order because of that quote.Here is the quote again. "After the person elected to office assumes the position, it is too late to nullify an illegal election" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted September 5, 2015 at 02:36 AM Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 at 02:36 AM Guest_Nancy_R that question is also for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted September 5, 2015 at 03:21 AM Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 at 03:21 AM I think the info on that website came from a third party. It definitely did not come from the right book. The referenced quote is inaccurate because of what is said in Official Interpretation 2006-6 and on page 251 in RONR as well as other pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted September 5, 2015 at 03:30 AM Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 at 03:30 AM How can I get ahold of Page 251 without buying the whole book? Everyone is always referring to that page and page 440. Is there an online version that has these? You guys have a site with the articles and sections, but I can't match these up with what is on Page 251. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 5, 2015 at 03:45 AM Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 at 03:45 AM Guest_Nancy_R that question is also for you. Thanks, shlinder, I was wondering, and feeling left out :-) Well, the 1915 edition of Robert's Rules (the 4th; Happy Centennial, 4th Edition) is available on the Internet, but no later, updated ("Newly Revised," as we began calling it in 1970), says, in Section 66, "After the election has taken effect and the officer or member has learned the fact, it is too late to reconsider the vote on the election." I concede that someone not paying attention can misconstrue that to be equivalent to your, beg your pardon, silly quotation. Anything else as to where the Toastmasters got it, better to ask them. We don't even read indvidual organizations's bylaws on this, the world's premiere Internet parliamentary forum; we're not about to try reading minds, which are usually much longer. When your members ask you to back up your assertion that the Toastmasters's statement is wrong ... (Y'know, wait a minute. Take a look at the little blurb at the bottom of Mr. Martin's post. Do look at your bylaws and be sure that RONR, or at least Robert's Rules, is your organization's parliamentary authority. If they say that Toastmasters Online Rules is your rule book, we are in the soup, and indeed, in that case elections cannot be nullified, and I sure hope the Toastmasters's rule book says nothing about global warming or the charms of Donald Trump.) ... But suppose we're running with RONR.... your best strategy will include having p. 444 and 251 bookmarked. Those pages in RONR, 11th Edition, that you need to look at, as well as p. 251, I referred you to in Post 9. And you really should get the book without delay. Especially since you are in a position of significant parliamentary responsibility. Yes I know it's a holiday weekend in the US, but Amazon delivers on Sundays as part of its march to eliminate all competition and opposition and insert microchips hypodermically above the temporal bone in all newborns as of 2018 (thank hevvins for Wikileaks), though I do prefer to recommend patronizing independent bookstores whenever possible. For that matter, Shlinder, as a newbie having to hit the floor running, you should also, or first, get your RONR - In Brief, and read it at once. If you buy it in person, read it right there in the bookstore, moving smoothly out from in frront of the cashier so the other customers can buy their own copies, and just stand there and read it. Some bookstores provide tables and chairs, and serve coffee and knicknacks. It should take you an hour or so to read RONR-IB -- your first time, that is -- unless you're a college graduate and feel the need to elucidate and explicate and expound on the blank pages in the back and you'll be there till closing time. If you order it for delivery, open the shipping package, take the book out, and read it there by the door. You can close and lock it if you must, but don't push it. And if you have questions, you know where to go. (I myslef need the sentence in RONR, p. 297, lines 20 - 23, explained every few weeks. I think I understand the explanations, every time, usually for about a week; sometimes ten minutes. I occasionally write it down, and an hour later what I wrote is incomprehensible.) As to specificallyhow it's inaccurate, look at Josh Martin's post, #10 above, where he says "For starters...." Shlinder, since you say (in Post 17) you are sold on HIeu's reference in post 16, you can see how the statement that elections cannot be nullified cannot be true at the same time. Finally, please note that when Hieu H. Huynh refers you to FAQ #20 in the very first reply, you could do worse than disregard anything else that follows. Not that you should. I'm pesonally tickled by my quip about alligators back there somewhere. N. B. I made up some stuff about microchips.-- Nancy N. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 5, 2015 at 03:57 AM Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 at 03:57 AM Come to think of it (bending over backwards), the writer of the Toastmasters's rules might have had in mind an election taking place at a convention, when the irregularities are discoverd after the convention is over. For a related example, see Official Interpretation 2006-11, WHO CAN ORDER A RECOUNT? at http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_18 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted September 5, 2015 at 04:04 AM Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 at 04:04 AM Since I am actively involved with the Toastmasters organization, I can say that the information on that website does not come from Toastmasters International and should not be associated with Toastmasters in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 5, 2015 at 04:29 AM Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 at 04:29 AM How can I get ahold of Page 251 without buying the whole book? Everyone is always referring to that page and page 440. Is there an online version that has these? You guys have a site with the articles and sections, but I can't match these up with what is on Page 251. You can't. And we don't have that website. (If it's the one I'm thinking of, it's run by a splendid fellow of exemplary parliamentary credentials, and who, it happens, was a mainstay, one of perhaps three total, of this, the world's premiere Internet parliamentary website forum, in its early days, around 2000 - 2004. But it's still 100 years behind, and the webmaster there says so unreservedly.) The Right Book is not online. Buy it. If you can't afford it, let me know privately and I'll take up a collection. As I said a few hours ago, though it feels like days, you're in a position of responsibility, dealing intrinsically with parliamentary procedure. You can't remain new and inexperienced and fulfill your responsibilities properly. You'll almost certainly need more than pp. 444 and 251. And c'mon, shlinder: a few weeks from now, after you've read and read and read in your RONR-IB and RONR and followed posts here on the world's premiere Internet parliamentary forum, you'll see a question posted that has not been answered, and you are struck with the realization that You Know The Answer, and you post it, and Voila! you are instantly the object of adulation by millions! The feeling of power, of exaltation, of smug superiority, is intoxicating. You will look at the number of posts under your name and smile with dreamy condescention at your well-meaning but naive supposition in early September 2015 that you could get by in life with only pp. 444-446 and 251. It's way better than the video games and Marvel comics you dribble your time away on. OK, fine: if you'e in or near New York City, I'll show you my copy. (Might as well this weekend, everyone else will be in Arlington and maybe doing something with all their free time other than typing.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.