Angie N

On 4/27/2024 at 12:18 PM, Drake Savory said:

Unless your bylaws say an officer cannot resign or die in office then it doesn't require them to fulfill the full 2 years. I highly doubt yours do but we've seen weird rules in bylaws before.  Unless there is a requirement to serve a full term as Vice-President, there are no restrictions.  He could serve 1 minute as VP then run.

What 56:31 is referring to is that if you have term-limits then serving less than half of the term does not count for the limit for the person filling a vacancy.  Let's take your case and let's assume you have term-limits.  VP runs for President and wins.  The office of VP is filled immediately with 13 months (more than half of two years) to go in the term.  That would count against the new VP as a term towards their limit.  If on the other hand they had 11 months (less than half of two years) to go in the term, that would not count towards their term limit.

 

He is not being snarky.  We all have seen cases, both in this forum and in real-life, of organizations not following their bylaws.  Sometimes it is out of ignorance and sometimes it is for the sake of convenience.  I don't want to speak for him but I took it as you saying you have rules in place outside of RONR to fill vacancies and him saying there ya go; just follow those rules.

Super helpful! Thank you so much!

On 4/27/2024 at 11:34 AM, Angie N said:

Mr. Welton your snarky comment is not necessary and unwelcomed. We will follow our bylaws. I just was trying to point out to Mr. Katz that we do have rules on how to fill vacancies in our Bylaws and it differs from what he mentioned. I thought this platform was a resource to seek some guidance.  I am here to learn.

Correction: Mr. Elsman not Mr. Katz

On 4/27/2024 at 11:47 AM, Joshua Katz said:

Then I don't follow. RONR does not require a term as VP before becoming President, so the length of time he has served as VP does not matter regarding his eligibility to be President unless your rules require a term. (It may not be relevant here, but I'm not convinced that, if the bylaws did require a term as VP, half a term would suffice.) 

A person, absent rules to the contrary, can run for any position while holding any other position, even if the offices are incompatible. If they are incompatible, of course, if he wins the one he runs for, he'd need to pick one. VP and President seem incompatible, so a VP who runs for President during an unexpired VP term will need to resign from the vice-presidency, but he could do so after serving a single day if the opportunity presented itself. He does not need to serve half a term.

Sorry I am not clear. Our bylaws say each office serves 2 years. Our VP has not served 2 years but has served more than half his term. My interpretation of RONR 56:31 was that he technically completely his term and is eligible.  I do understand what you are saying though that RONR doesn't require a length of time and he could run at any time.  

On 4/27/2024 at 10:59 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

Technically, he has not "completed his term in office." He just gets credit for a full term, for any purpose where that is relevant.

Unless your bylaws have a requirement that a member complete a full term as VP in order t0 run for president, he is eligible to run whether or not he has completed it.

Then follow them.

Do you mean that you don't have multiple VPs, or you do but don't intend to move them up? If the former, then of course there would be none to move up. But of the latter, and your bylaws don't specifically provide otherwise, the "promotion" is automatic. No action by the assembly is necessary or proper.

Mr. Welton your snarky comment is not necessary and unwelcomed. We will follow our bylaws. I just was trying to point out to Mr. Katz that we do have rules on how to fill vacancies in our Bylaws and it differs from what he mentioned. I thought this platform was a resource to seek some guidance.  I am here to learn.

On 4/27/2024 at 10:19 AM, Joshua Katz said:

There was nothing in the original question about needing to serve as VP before becoming President, and we were told there was nothing relevant in the bylaws. Are you now saying there is such a rule?

You are correct! I did not say that it is a rule nor am I saying it now. I was reading RONR and looking for a reference and I think 56:31 addresses his eligibility.  

On 4/26/2024 at 11:13 PM, Rob Elsman said:

It would promote any other vice presidents whose terms are not expired, and the vacancy would occur for the lowest-ranking one. Of course, if their is just one vice president, there would be a vacancy for that office.

I think I found the information I was looking for. Our vice president did serve more than half of his term so he has completed his term in office. I believe that makes him eligible to run for president.  Our Bylaws does have how to full vacancies. We wouldn't promote Vice presidents. Thanks again for the response. 

On 4/26/2024 at 6:54 PM, Rob Elsman said:

It is proper for a sitting vice president to stand for election as president. In the event that he wins, he is presumed to have resigned his office as vice president.

Thank you!  So this will create a new vacancy for vice president.  Is there a reference in RONR that talks about this being proper that you can share?  

We have staggering elections and we have an upcoming election where the office of president is open. We received the slate amd our vice president is on the slate.  His term as vice president is not up. Can he do that? Our Bylaws do not address this scenario and it doesn't seem right. He hasn't resigned as vice president either.  Please help me understand what is in order here. Thank you!

Thank you everyone for your responses! Greatly appreciated.  I actually checked our Bylaws and only see that the Parliamentarian is on the executive board. I think it may be custom that they serve as the bylaws chair also. This sounds like a good opportunity for us to update our bylaws to provide clarification.  

Hello,

In our organization the Parliamentarian is an elected position and is also chair of the bylaws committee and member of the executive board.  I understand that the Parliamentarian in general should remain impartial and not participate in debate and voting unless by secret ballot. Does this still apply as a board member and chair of bylaws? If possible,  can someone tell me where I  can find the answer in RONR also? Thank you so much!

Help please! Questions: If a nominating committee is elected, what would be the process according to RONR on how the nominations can be handled if the committee doesn't yet exist? Would self nominations and any member nominating a member in a meeting be in order?  The bylaws only state that the committee is elected. Also want to mention this is not a new organization. Thank you!! 

On 5/25/2022 at 5:39 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Angie, I am not as pessimistic or nihilistic as Mr. Elsman. However, your situation appears to be complex enough that your organization should hire a professional parliamentarian who can review the facts and your bylaws and rules in detail, and then provide an opinion with advice on how to go forward from here. One benefit of this path is that the external, independent parliamentarian may be seen as impartial, compared to any members of the organization. 

Thank you Mr. Kapur! I do appreciate this response and suggestion. I am also more optimistic. I am a part of this group and the fact that I am asking questions here for guidance, does in fact say we want to get it right even I represent a small population. 

On 5/24/2022 at 10:15 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I am betting we will not get this right.  This group does not know how to get this right, and it will not know how to get this right at the special meeting.  The best you can hope is that something, right or wrong, will be done.  Just move on.

Thank you! With the proper guidance we will. 

On 5/24/2022 at 8:58 PM, Rob Elsman said:

My own guess is that this organization was, in no way, prepared to conduct an election.  It was not prepared yesterday; it is not prepared today; and, it will not be prepared tomorrow.  Whether or not it will be prepared in the long-range is difficult to predict.  Meanwhile, the organization needs to keep functioning, even if things are not "corrected properly".

Given these things, I suggest that it is time to move on.  All the members need to unite and work together for the sake of the organization.

I appreciate your opinion and agree we may not have been prepared. We will definitely move on however we are having a special meeting for the vacancy and I want to be able to ensure we get this right. 

On 5/24/2022 at 8:20 PM, Angie N said:

I understand your comment however they are elected in my organization

I really want us to get this corrected properly. 

On 5/24/2022 at 7:41 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Time to get a parliamentarian who knows about parliamentary procedure.

I understand your comment however they are elected in my organization

On 5/24/2022 at 7:00 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Where does your parliamentarian claim to get this authority from? Parliamentarians are advisors, not decision-makers.

 

It was presented by the president agreeing with this recommendation from the Parliamentarian. 

There has been a lot of back and forth about next steps other than  filling the vacancy. The president is even considering just declaring the unopposed candidate the winner. It was said she never declared her the winner or "loser" she just adjourned the meeting not knowing what to do because the no votes were counted as the majority.  Can he do this? 

Our bylaws say elections are done by secret ballot. 

Hello again. I'm sorry to beat this dead horse however I have another question. The election was contested and our Parliamentarian declared the entire election invalid due to the ballot being incorrect and members not present at the meeting and voted. It was about 5 which wouldn't change the results for any of the candidates. 

I understand the points made here about contesting the election had to be timely with a point of order during the meeting and it wasn't. I also don't believe we should be doing the entire election over just filling the vacancy. Based on 46:50, can the membership decide that the election was invalid and we have the election over? Are they any other RONR references that would explain why the election was valid and just incomplete? Thanks again @Gary Novosielski @Joshua Katz@Atul Kapur@Richard Brown

On 5/15/2022 at 10:24 AM, Joshua Katz said:

Is that all they say? Or is there some language about "until their successors are elected"? If the term is only 2 years, and has expired, there is no reason for the person to be in office now.

@Richard Brown This is exactly what is stated in the bylaws. 

"The term of office shall be two years."

There is no other language about vacancies or until successors are elected. 

On 5/15/2022 at 7:53 AM, Joshua Katz said:

By "until elections," do you mean until the next elections? That is not right. For whether the person should be in office at the moment, until the election is completed, what do your bylaws say about the term of office?

Mr. Katz, yes I meant until the next election - thank you for the correction. The bylaws say the term of office for the position is 2 years. No further information about filling vacancies. 

On 5/15/2022 at 2:11 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Sadly that is very often the case.  And sadly that often means there is no remedy.  

This is often referred to (if somewhat unsympathetically) as "you snooze, you lose."

it's is important, when you notice a rule is being broken, to remember that it is the right and duty of all members to speak up at the time.  The tool to use for this purpose is the Point of Order [RONR (12th ed.) §23]. 

This motion:

• Takes precedence over whatever is going on at the time
• Does not need to be recognized.
• Can even interrupt someone who is speaking at the time, if necessary.
• Does not require a second
• Is not debatable or amendable.
• Typically it is ruled on by the chair, without any vote (unless an Appeal (§24) is moved.)

See 23:12 ff. for the proper Form and Example of raising a point of order.

Thank you for this information. I will certainly pass along so hopefully this doesn't happen again. 

On 5/15/2022 at 12:18 AM, Atul Kapur said:

The absent candidate does not have grounds to object now. The election appears to be incomplete and should be completed at the next opportunity. This losing candidate may be nominated again.

Thank you for responding. This is helpful. 

On 5/15/2022 at 12:33 AM, Richard Brown said:

If in fact no one was elected to that position, then I agree with Dr. Kapur that it is an incomplete election and it should be completed as soon as possible. If the nominations are reopened, as they almost certainly  should be, the losing candidate may be nominated again. He may also be elected as a write-in candidate if he is not nominated.  

That is correct. The no votes got the majority for this candidate. And the meeting adjourned stating that the current officer will stay in place until elections however there are no provisions in our bylaws about vacancies so I don't believe that's the correct solution. Thank you for your help. This makes sense that election is incomplete. 

On 5/14/2022 at 4:51 PM, Richard Brown said:

No. After the ballots are counted, the normal procedure is for the head teller to read the results out loud but not to declare anyone as a winner. He then hands the report to the chair who again reads the results to the assembly and declares the results or winners. There does not need to be a motion to “Accept the results“.

Edited to add: See sections 45:37 through 45:41 of RONR (12th ed.) for the process of announcing the results of an election and declaring the results (outcome). 

I have a follow up question. The chair did declare the results however one of the candidates on the ballot was not on the call to contest the results. I know it was mentioned in this thread that it had to be timely to contest. One of the candidates does plan to contest because he was an unopposed candidate and as a result of the ballot having a no option instead of a write in he lost. Would this be scenario be  in order or is the election still final with no alternative solution to rectify? 

On 5/14/2022 at 4:51 PM, Richard Brown said:

No. After the ballots are counted, the normal procedure is for the head teller to read the results out loud but not to declare anyone as a winner. He then hands the report to the chair who again reads the results to the assembly and declares the results or winners. There does not need to be a motion to “Accept the results“.

Edited to add: See sections 45:37 through 45:41 of RONR (12th ed.) for the process of announcing the results of an election and declaring the results (outcome). 

Thank you the references! I appreciate this.