Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

flipper92

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. "The executive officers shall be elected at the end of the school year and shall serve in office for one year." "The Vice President shall be President-elect."
  2. Elevation is automatic. Each office has a term of 1 year. Many other positions have succeeded themselves after one year (treasurer, secretary, etc.), but NOT vice-president or president because of the elevation clause.
  3. Our association elects a new Vice President every year in late spring for a one year term. He/She then automatically elevates to the position of President the following year. The current VP is thinking of taking a job beginning Fall 2018 that would preclude his ongoing membership in the Association, which means he would also not be able to serve as President next year. Under our Bylaws, any vacancy in an elected position can be filled by President, with the approval of the Executive Board. There are no provisions for special elections, and we have never had a President who was not Vice-President the year before. Assuming the current VP accepts the new position: 1. If he does not resign before the end of this year, does the membership or President even have the power to replace him before his term ends? 2. If he does resign before spring elections, is it proper for the President to appoint a replacement, given that the new appointee would then become president? (the concern is having an unelected President who would have been VP for just a few weeks before elevating to President). 3. Alternately, can we hold a special election to fill the position of President for next Fall, and can we place any restrictions on who may run (e.g. "only past presidents" since they would not need the training that comes with being VP the previous year). Thanks! Paul
  4. Hello: Our constitution and bylaws provide for the election of a treasurer, but the position is not described in any manner. Traditionally, the treasurer has handled the bank account and made disbursements with approval of the Executive Board. Does RROO have default responsibilities for such a position with this title, or is every position "powerless" unless otherwise provided for in the bylaws and constitution?
  5. Our bylaws provide that a person running for any position must garner a majority of votes cast. We have 3 members at large slots and 6 candidates. The results of the election were that one person met the majority threshold and the other 5 did not. We will be having a runoff for the last two slots. The question is: before the runoff, does RROO speak to whether we need to communicate the percentages that the 5 runoff candidates received in the first round of voting?
  6. The President appoints three people to count ballots per our bylaws. Is there anything in RR that prevents the President from being involved in the ballot counting process if he is running for one of the positions being elected? (He is cycling off as president). Some have suggested that no one on the ballot should be involved in the tallying process at all, although our bylaws are silent on this issue.
  7. We are to elect 3 members at large. 6 candidates are running. Our bylaws require that all positions must be won by a majority of votes cast. Because there are three positions, each member may cast three votes. Let's say 1 of the 6 achieves a majority in the first round of voting: do we have another roun with all 5 who did not make the threshold, or is the lowest vote-getter eliminated? Is the answer different if 2 of the six achieves majority the first time through? There is a clause in our bylaws that states that if no one receives a majority, then the top two candidates go to a second round, but that presumes three or more people vying for a single position instead of three slots, which is what we have here.
  8. What if there were only two people running for the second position and there were no write-ins? Would you still need to have a second election for the now uncontested spot?
  9. A person is running for two positions in our ballot election next week. If he wins both positions, I understand he can just decide not to do one or the other. If that happens, does the second place winner in the position he rejected then automatically win that position? Our bylaws are silent on running/winning two positions. Thanks.
  10. Sorry for the confusion: we have four slots open. All are equal terms. In the past someone must have left early and possibly the vacancy was filled through appointment rather than ballot (as provided per the by-laws) To clarify the hypothetical: 3 attain majority, 4 remaining then get voted on to fill the 1 remaining slot. If no one receives a majority on the second ballot, then all 4 are voted on again, and again, until one of them gets a majority? Like how the Pope is elected? And no removal of low vote-getter in each round? Follow-up: what does RR say about reporting the results? Do we say what % people received if less than majority before doing the second ballot, or just that they failed to achieve the majority threshold?
  11. So say two people pass the majority threshold: the other five go on the next ballot, and everyone votes for one person to fill the remaining spot? What if no one gets a majority of votes in the first go-around, or in the run-off in the second round? Is that slot vacant? (our bylaws allow the exec committee to fill vacancies in committees between elections).
  12. Every few years we elect members to a standing committee that has 6 people on it. Since terms on this committee last for two election cycles, we never have to replace everyone at once. Typically we have three openings, and exactly three people who run, so they all make it on. This year we have four openings and seven people running. Our by-laws are silent on voting methods/requirements, so here is the question: some have suggested that on the ballot we should only be able to vote for four of the seven, since there are four spots open. Others have said that Approval Voting is more standard in this scenario, where you can vote for as many people as you would "approve" to fill those spots. Is there a default? We usually do a ballot vote, so the wording on the ballot is crucial here. Again, in the past, these two methods would have looked identical because the # of candidates equalled the number of slots. In either case, how many votes would each person have to make it on the committee? Would it simply be the top four vote-getters, or would each have to receive a majority of votes cast to be on the committee at all? (6 is the max # on the committee, but it is not required). It seems that with Approval Voting, you are more likely to get more candidates to reach that majority threshold. Help! Flipper92
  13. To respond to 1st Church first: the question is "scope of the motion/bylaw" or germaneness. Example of an action item: Approval of a contract for goods or services. The bylaws currently require a majority vote to approve. The motion is to change that threshold to 2/3. Another member wants to limit the change only to those contracts of indefinite length. I am suggesting that the vote on the change in the threshold come first, and then a vote to carve out an exception to that threshold for items with a definite time period come after. Because there are really two questions: should we have different procedures for different categories of action items? And what should our approval threshold be to approve those items? The discussions on those two questions are very different.
  14. I understand how the amendment in question would in fact decrease the # of items affected by the proposed bylaw, but it does so by creating a new category of action items that currently does not exist. Requiring 30 days written notice before voting on such action items would also decrease the # of items affected, but certainly that would not be in the scope of the proposed bylaw. Is the "# affected" test the only guideline for "scope"?
  15. Hello all: There is a motion on the floor to change one of the bylaws. The change has to do with the threshold required for the organization to give it's approval to certain action items. Right now the threshold is simple majority. The motion is to increase that threshold to 2/3 instead. Another member offers an amendment to the motion: change the threshold to 2/3, but keep the simple majority if the action item in question is of a limited duration. For example, voting to approve a maintenance contract that is ongoing, versus a maintenance contract that expires in one year. It seems to me that the offer is beyond the scope of the original motion, and should instead be offered after the vote on the original motion is taken. The amendment doesn't really go to the proposed rule change in the motion; it simply adds an exception to it. Or is adding this exception still within the scope? Easier question: someone offers to amend the motion so that the threshold is 3/4 instead. Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...