Guest Maryann Posted October 18, 2017 at 02:36 AM Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 at 02:36 AM Our bylaws clearly state requirements of eligibility to run for an office, a member nominated themselves off the floor, after nominations closed, it was discovered that the member does not meet the requirements as spelled out in our by-laws, they are now claiming that RONR supercedes our bylaws and since the nominations were closed there was nothing we could do. Also the individual involved is the chair for the nominations committee and knew they were not eligible and nominated themselves anyway. Thoughts and opinions please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted October 18, 2017 at 02:47 AM Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 at 02:47 AM According to RONR, your bylaws prevail over your parliamentary authority in the event of a conflict. I'm not even seeing the conflict, though - RONR doesn't say "once nominations are closed, nothing can be done about ineligible people seeking office." Of course, with nothing else to go on, I have no idea if they are, in fact, ineligible to be nominated, but RONR doesn't say to ignore your bylaws and allow ineligible people to be nominated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 18, 2017 at 04:02 AM Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 at 04:02 AM 1 hour ago, Guest Maryann said: Our bylaws clearly state requirements of eligibility to run for an office, a member nominated themselves off the floor, after nominations closed, it was discovered that the member does not meet the requirements as spelled out in our by-laws, they are now claiming that RONR supercedes our bylaws and since the nominations were closed there was nothing we could do. Also the individual involved is the chair for the nominations committee and knew they were not eligible and nominated themselves anyway. Thoughts and opinions please. I hope they clearly state the requirements, because organizations sometimes have trouble determining whether eligibility requirements apply to "running" for office, being "nominated" for office, being "elected" to office, or "holding" office. All of those mean, or could be interpreted to mean, something different. Of those, the definition of "running" is probably the most unclear. What do your bylaws actually say is being restricted by your requirements? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts