Election of Chairperson

[Steve Kennedy]

Hi, In our constitution it states that "Standing Committees must elect a chair at their first meeting within one week of the AGM"

I was elected onto one of our standing committees and we held our first meeting 5 days after the AGM.

There can be up to 5 members on this standing committee, but only 4 were nominated and elected unopposed.

We had 3 of the 4 at the first meeting so we had a quorum.

The former Chairperson conducted the meeting to carry out the election of office bearers, and then nominated one of the 3 members for the position of Chairperson, who accepted his nomination, and I nominated myself for Chairperson.

We are supposed to have a secret ballot, but it seemed a little pointless, as whoever won, we would know who the 3rd member voted for.

She then decided to abstain from voting, so it was a Mexican stand off.

Our constitution states that in the event that a Chairperson cannot be decided, the member with the longest term of voting membership of our club would then be elected Chairperson.

The 3rd member of our committee had the dates that the 2 nominees had joined the club, and it was noted that I had been a member for 18 months longer than the other nominee, so I was duly elected as the new Chairperson, and proceeded to conduct the meeting according to the Agenda. Everything seemed in order, until several days later that the other nominee went to the administration office, and got the actual dates that we had both joined the club. He discovered that when I originally joined I was only an Associate Member for the first 2 years, and not a Senior member with voting rights, so he is claiming that he should be appointed the rightful Chairperson, as a mistake had been made at the meeting.

I agree that the constitution states this, and agree with that decision.

However, my question is this, as the former chairperson nominated the other nominee, I don't believe that he had the right to do this, as he was no longer a member of the committee, so I would then be the only official nominee, and it should be decided that I was then elected unopposed?

Do you agree with my line of thought?

Thanks

Steve Kennedy

[Hieu H. Huynh]

2 hours ago, Steve Kennedy said:

We are supposed to have a secret ballot, but it seemed a little pointless, as whoever won, we would know who the 3rd member voted for.

If a ballot vote is required, then it must be done.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

The former chairman had no right to attend or chair the meeting or to make a nomination. But you consented to him doing so, and now it is too late to raise a point of order.