Annual meeting of members

[Guest Hughes]

Our Annual meeting of members is to be held in March. Our Board has circulated a nomination ballot and then removed 4 names, submitted by members, for trivial reasons while closing the nominations after the mail-in nominations. They also listed "their" candidates first on the following mail-in voting ballot. They did NOT allow write in votes, they say they will not allow nominatiosn from the floor at the meeting. In addition, our Bylaws say that members may request absentee ballots, Our Board mailed ballots to all members along with a newsletter, while refusing the mailing list to the opposition candidates.

Our bylaws state that the election of Directors will happen at the Meeting of Members. (Not at the also mentioned meeting of Board members) I would like to believe that the members, themselves, will decide on whether to allow nominations from the floor and that ballots mailed out with incomplete candidate lists, and a prohibition on write-in candidates were improper.

Many members see these actions as interferring with the election.

It is the intent of a large group of the members to vote to suspend the rules and install a Chairman ProTem for the Meeting of members due to persistent conflicts with the President.

Question.. do the members at the Annual Meeting of Members have the right to insist on nominations from the floor and the right to invalidate ballots mailed in by members prior to the meeting because of the incomplete name list and refusal to allow write-in candidates.. AND the refusal to share the mailing list with the opposition candidates.

[George Mervosh]

Sounds like a mess we won't be solving here to anyone's satisfaction. Try some live, in person help.

Contact either (or both) the ...

National Association of Parliamentarians

213 South Main St.

Independence, MO 64050-3850

Phone: 888-627-2929

Fax: 816-833-3893;

e-mail: hq@NAP2.org

<<www.]parliamentarians.org>>

or

American Institute of Parliamentarians

550M Ritchie Highway #271

Severna Park, MD 21146

Phone: 888-664-0428

Fax: 410-544-4640

e-mail: aip@parliamentaryprocedure.org

<<www.parliamentaryprocedure.org>>

for a reference or information.

There are also individuals out there that are truly expert parliamentarians, but not members of either group. I don't know of a list or ranking of them.

[Robert B Fish]

As a minimum, a declaration that a candidate is not eligible to be nominated must be made in the context of a meeting and that ruling can be appealed.

You can vote to suspend the rules and place a chairman pro tem in the chair (2/3 vote required). This might be complicated by the fact that proxy voting is involved and this will depend on the wording of your bylaws.

Most of the other questions in yoru post seem to depend on the content of your bylaws.

Also, check to see what authority is held by the BOD in the elections process. Normally they have no authority and the election is a function of the assembly and not the BOD.

-Bob

[jstackpo]

Question..

[1]:do the members at the Annual Meeting of Members have the right to insist on nominations from the floor and

[2]the right to invalidate ballots mailed in by members prior to the meeting because of the incomplete name list

[3]and refusal to allow write-in candidates..

[4]AND the refusal to share the mailing list with the opposition candidates.

Answers:

1: Yes. RONR, p. 421, line 9

2: No. Since your bylaws allow (a very bad - see RONR, p. 409) "mixed" absentee and in meeting voting system, you have no choice but to live with it.

3: Probably not. The "refusal" is certainly improper, but that shouldn't actually prevent write-in votes. If any show up, they should be allowed and counted. If "discarded" that may be grounds for throwing out the entire election.

4: No. This is a policy question. Sounds like a dictarorial board needs to be replaced. Good luck.

[Robert B Fish]

I would also think that if the BOD acted inappropriately to deny eligible candidates access to the ballot, that a timely point of order at the annual meeting would be sufficient to invalidate the previous ballot and proxies. That would seem to constitute a continuing breach [page 244(e), i.el the right of each individual member to seek office]

-Bob

[hmtcastle]

the right of each individual member to seek office

Whence this right of "seeking" that you speak of?

[Robert B Fish]

Whence this right of "seeking" that you speak of?

E.g. page 276 (item 7).

-Bob

[hmtcastle]

E.g. page 276 (item 7).

Nothing about "seeking" there.

[Guest Curious]

Sounds like a mess we won't be solving here to anyone's satisfaction.

This seems true.

[Gary Novosielski]

I would also think that if the BOD acted inappropriately to deny eligible candidates access to the ballot, that a timely point of order at the annual meeting would be sufficient to invalidate the previous ballot and proxies. That would seem to constitute a continuing breach [page 244(e), i.el the right of each individual member to seek office]

-Bob

I've never found any evidence of a basic right to "seek office".

If you're trying to establish a breach, it will be more fruitful to examine whether the right of members to vote freely for their choice(s) was violated.