Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Josh, Here is the Section of the bylaws referencing the membership requirement: ARTICLE VIII ELECTIONS Section 1. It shall be the aim of the union to elect to the Executive Board the most capable members of the various groups comprising the membership of the union. In order to be eligible to run for a Union Officer position (President/Business Manager, Vice President, Secretary/Treasurer or Recording Secretary), a candidate must be a member of the Union in good standing for five (5) years, be a member in good standing as of the date of nomination and must have attended three (3) of the last five (5) General Membership Meetings It continues to define the requirement for Trustee as only needing three years with the same attendance requirement.
  2. Thank you all..your input is greatly appreciated! I will pass your posts along to the Executive Board. The requirement that the VP candidate does not meet is a membership requirement. In order to serve as an Officer, you must have been a member in good standing of this particular Local for five years.
  3. We just had our nomination meeting for our board. The current VP was previously appointed to the position (in accordance with the bylaws - see below) in order to fill the balance of the remaining term of the previous VP. This incumbent was nominated from the floor during the meeting but unfortunately he does not meet one of the requirements to be re-elected to the position. He was the sole nominee for the VP position. As there were no other candidates what is the proper remedy? The Board would like to re-appoint him using their power to fill a vacancy by appointment, thereby technically skirting the eligibility requirements: Section 9. In the event a vacancy is created by the resignation, suspension, expulsion, death or incapacity or the removal of an officer, the Executive Board shall be empowered to appoint a successor to fill the balance of the unexpired term, and such appointee shall hold office until the next regular election for that office. He's REALLY good in this position, so I get their desire to keep him on-board, but I'm not sure it's proper, especially where the bylaws are mum on this scenario... Do they keep the strong VP on a technicality (loosely interpreted bylaw) or should they have a new nomination session just for VP and lose a great Board member who advocates strongly for the membership? Where the bylaws are silent on a matter, they defer to Robert's. Any Advice would the GREATLY appreciated
  • Create New...