Anonymous

I was hoping someone could explain this concept to me; Reading about some of the motions, it seems like some of the motions are in order when another has the floor but they must not interrupt another speaker. Does this mean that the member may stand and state their motion without recognition of the chair, if they are not interrupting another speaker?

This is purely a hypothetical, as legislation would need to be written to make this possible within our bylaws; but currently, the board wants to appoint a president for a short period of time, and I am wondering how to write legislation (if possible) to allow for a temporary appointment.

This is purely a hypothetical, as legislation would need to be written to make this possible within our bylaws; but currently, the board wants to appoint a president for a short period of time, and I am wondering how to write legislation (if possible) to allow for a temporary appointment.

Can an appointed member be removed from office at any time, if it is specifically outlined in the bylaws?

Ah okay, thank you, that was helpful!

Hey sorry, I don’t have access to the 11th edition at the moment. Would you mind posting the quote with that citation? But this is interesting....so are you saying that the motion would have had to been addressed directly after, or else it was void?

Okay so the election and the motion to reconsider was held in February. Another meeting was held on March 5.

The next meeting after the election was held in late February, I actually need to look into whether there was another meeting scheduled for the first week of March, whether a meeting happened or not I’m not sure, but I do know that an election did not occur (I can look into this if necessary). Spring break occurred the second week of March.

Okay then. Thanks a bunch! Though the disputes are far from over. I may be potentially looking into another forum post in the next few days

Yes, so I wasn't involved in the issues with meeting quorum; I was recently appointed to parliamentarian position by the current executive board, and I'm trying to sort everything out, as tensions are high as a result of everything that has occurred between now and then. I was informed that an online form was given out to the general body, and that was used to recess. However, I do see the potential issues that arise there, so I know there will have to be some legislation put in place for what to do in the case of an emergency. But anyways, you have helped me navigate the most complicated aspects of this, which was dealing with the elections, and I thank you for that. One last question though: is it okay for executive board to complete a special election (in this case that is what's happening), and then the general body votes on that decision when it is back in session?

So the timeline when all of this occurred was unfortunate. This happened the week before Spring break, and then once Spring Break hit, COVID-19 took place, and school was moved to online for the rest of the semester. So once all of that occurred, they tried to meet quorum by moving meeting online, but failed to do so, and moved into a recess. So due to this, the second election occurred when it did. That being said, the general body would have to confirm the new candidate in the fall.

So this, part, is this open to interpretation then? I thought the error was when the motion to reconsider was made, but you are saying the error was made in the action taken thereafter?

Okay, so at the second election, the point of order was not raised, and a different candidate was elected. In regards to the second part, the motion to reconsider was made at the general body meeting, the second election was held by the executive board. This was due to a recess called by the executive board for failing to reach quorum (which was the result of COVID-19). So on that basis, if the error is made in the second election which was conducted by the executive board, can the new executive board (once sworn in to the new positions), still call a point of order, even though they were not involved in the election (did not have voting rights)?

Oh also, sorry talking about parliamentary procedure always leads to more and more questions, but I may have misspoken in my previous reply, so I think you answered my question on how to handle a point of order which is great. I think my lack of eloquent writing has left me slightly confused. I'm going to rewind a bit, to right after the first election; I need some clarity on how to properly dispute an election. So let's say I was a general body member and I wanted to call point of order on the election because of comments made (so I am claiming the election is unfair). This would have occurred the week after the initial election, before the motion to reconsider was made. Let's say the chairman rules on it, and the point is ruled to be well taken (we will also assume that no one appeals this decision). What would happen next? Would that effectively void the first election? And can that point of order be entertained even after the initial candidate has accepted?

So, yes, the candidate did not decline the results, and they had consented to candidacy prior.