Guest dusti Posted February 19, 2011 at 02:54 AM Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 at 02:54 AM Revising our bylaws and stating:"If at time of nominations there is only one person nominated for a position they shall be declared winner by acclamation.and election for next month cancelled."Does this sound okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted February 19, 2011 at 03:00 AM Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 at 03:00 AM Revising our bylaws and stating:"If at time of nominations there is only one person nominated for a position they shall be declared winner by acclamation.and election for next month cancelled."Does this sound okay?It is not completely in line with RONR but absent some superior rule you can make the bylaws say whatever you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted February 19, 2011 at 02:39 PM Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 at 02:39 PM Revising our bylaws and stating:"If at time of nominations there is only one person nominated for a position they shall be declared winner by acclamation.and election for next month cancelled."Does this sound okay?You might want to see what RONR has to say about the subject (p. 428) and wait until the election for acclamation of an unopposed candidate. After all, a lot can happen in a month (e.g. there may be a need to re-open nominations).When it comes to bylaws, less is often more. And the more you can rely on RONR's default rules and not try to re-invent the wheel, the better off you're likely to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 19, 2011 at 10:52 PM Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 at 10:52 PM Revising our bylaws and stating:"If at time of nominations there is only one person nominated for a position they shall be declared winner by acclamation.and election for next month cancelled."Does this sound okay?Not to me, but I'm not a member of the organization.What, if anything, do the bylaws say about acclamation now? Is a ballot vote required?Why not just wait until the proper time for elections, and do it by acclamation then?What are the advantages of making members guess when the election will actually occur? Downside(s)?Are you going to also make adjustments in the bylaws to account for the shortening or lengthening of terms that will inevitably occur?Have you given this whole matter a lot of thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 20, 2011 at 01:34 AM Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 at 01:34 AM Are you going to also make adjustments in the bylaws to account for the shortening or lengthening of terms that will inevitably occur?I don't know about "inevitably." Organizations frequently specify their own term of office in the Bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 20, 2011 at 02:20 AM Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 at 02:20 AM I don't know about "inevitably." Organizations frequently specify their own term of office in the Bylaws.Sure they do. And this one probably does, but suppose it now says a term of a year, and the nomination meeting happens 11 months later, electing someone by acclamation, you've got a conflict, unless the bylaws carefully clarify what happens. Then, if the new guy is succeeded by a candidate in a contested election, his term runs out a month before the "regular" election. If not inevitable, situations like this are at the very least "highly likely" if they go through with this change. I think it's generally okay to have an acclamation exception where the bylaws otherwise mandate a ballot vote, but flip-flopping the election backward and forward by a month is sure to have future members wondering what the heck the old folks were thinkin' back in '11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 20, 2011 at 02:37 AM Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 at 02:37 AM Sure they do. And this one probably does, but suppose it now says a term of a year, and the nomination meeting happens 11 months later, electing someone by acclamation, you've got a conflict, unless the bylaws carefully clarify what happens. Then, if the new guy is succeeded by a candidate in a contested election, his term runs out a month before the "regular" election. If not inevitable, situations like this are at the very least "highly likely" if they go through with this change. I think it's generally okay to have an acclamation exception where the bylaws otherwise mandate a ballot vote, but flip-flopping the election backward and forward by a month is sure to have future members wondering what the heck the old folks were thinkin' back in '11.I apparently was not sufficiently clear. Many societies specify that the term of office begins on a set date, rather than beginning at the time of election. If that is the case, the time at which the election happens is immaterial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.