Nominations for office question.....

[TROfficial]

In October my organization had a meeting at which time nominations for officers were announced. 3 names were presented. The president asked for a vote to close nominations and then closed them officially. he then announced that the votes will take place at our next meeting in march (2011).

At the March meeting the president declared that he would re open nominations and stated that he did not need to follow Roberts set procedure of requiring a majority vote from the floor in order to re open nominations. His arguement was that beacuse we did not vote immediately back in October that the nominations were still open.

At that time he opened nominations without a vote from the floor. If i am not mistaken Roberts Rules state that in order to re open nominations several things must happen. One of which is a majority vote of the members present to allow him to do this. He contends that he does not need this vote because we did not vote at the previous meeting.

Keep in mind, he was the one who stated at the previous meeting that the nominations were closed and the vote would be held at the following meeting.

Please provide me with your opinions.

Thanks very much.

[Robert B Fish]

The chairman states that nominations were reopened. There was no point of order made at the time. Therefore, nominations were opened. This is the type of breach for which a point of order must be raised at the time. Otherwise, the assembly has waived its right to object later.

-Bob

[TROfficial]

The chairman states that nominations were reopened. There was no point of order made at the time. Therefore, nominations were opened. This is the type of breach for which a point of order must be raised at the time. Otherwise, the assembly has waived its right to object later.

-Bob

Bob,

Thanks for the reply. At the meeting the assembly did object. But the president persisted and said it was his right to do so regardless and did not ask for a vote at all and a set of Robert's Rules was not present at the meeting.

With this in mind, I think the president is wrong in his actions.

Do you agree?

Thanks.

[Chris Harrison]

At the meeting the assembly did object. But the president persisted and said it was his right to do so regardless and did not ask for a vote at all and a set of Robert's Rules was not present at the meeting.

With this in mind, I think the president is wrong in his actions.

The President was incorrect that he could reopen nominations without the assembly agreeing. However, since his ruling was not Appealed what happened although not proper is still valid. In very very very few cases can the President properly say that what he says goes and the members have no say in the matter and this is not one of those cases. See RONR p. 642 for how to proceed if he ever tries to shut you all down like that again.

[tctheatc]

It sounds as if the process was not followed through on. The assembly "objected" and the chair ruled. That was it. There should have been an appeal of the chair's decision. But again too late now...

[TROfficial]

The President was incorrect that he could reopen nominations without the assembly agreeing. However, since his ruling was not Appealed what happened although not proper is still valid. In very very very few cases can the President properly say that what he says goes and the members have no say in the matter and this is not one of those cases. See RONR p. 642 for how to proceed if he ever tries to shut you all down like that again.

The ruling was appealed and he dismissed my appeal at the meeting. thats where i sit now. all of this happened literally one week ago and the next meeting is not scheduled for another 3 months.

Considering this issue is a week old and the president of the organization gave me no options while at the meeting...and one week later of research here i am....do i still have options to appeal/fight the issue?

Our organization has 28 people. We had 4 people running for office. One member got 11 votes, one got 8, and the other two got 3 votes. in a case like this does the member who received 11 votes win? or do the 28 members revote on the two top 2 candidates for a majority vote to declaire a winner? This is another issue in question at the moment.

thanks for any help.

TR

[Chris Harrison]

Considering this issue is a week old and the president of the organization gave me no options while at the meeting...and one week later of research here i am....do i still have options to appeal/fight the issue?

No. What is done is done. You actually did have an option at the meeting (on p. 642) which you could have used but it is too late now. Give p. 642 a close read so you know what to do next time.

Our organization has 28 people. We had 4 people running for office. One member got 11 votes, one got 8, and the other two got 3 votes. in a case like this does the member who received 11 votes win? or do the 28 members revote on the two top 2 candidates for a majority vote to declaire a winner? This is another issue in question at the moment.

A candidate needs a majority of the votes cast in order to be elected. However, since (apparently) no Point of Order and/or Appeal was made it is too late to do anything about it now as well.

[TROfficial]

So what you're saying is that even though i did object at the time....when the president overruled my objection (which is against the rules) i am SOL basically because i didn't have the exact page of Robert's Rules out at the meeting to prove he was wrong in his actions.

Really? It ends like this? because the president broke the rules and i coudln't point it out immediately at the given meeting?

[Chris Harrison]

So what you're saying is that even though i did object at the time....when the president overruled my objection (which is against the rules) i am SOL basically because i didn't have the exact page of Robert's Rules out at the meeting to prove he was wrong in his actions.

Really? It ends like this? because the president broke the rules and i coudln't point it out immediately at the given meeting?

Yes unfortunately so. That is a big reason why members should be familiar with their parliamentary authority and have a copy of it on hand at meetings since with a very few exceptions there is an extremely short time in which members can call to the President's attention that a rule is being violated/not followed and to respond to an adverse ruling.

[Gary Novosielski]

So what you're saying is that even though i did object at the time....when the president overruled my objection (which is against the rules) i am SOL basically because i didn't have the exact page of Robert's Rules out at the meeting to prove he was wrong in his actions.

Really? It ends like this? because the president broke the rules and i coudln't point it out immediately at the given meeting?

Except for a handful of "continuing breaches" on page 244, yes.

But this is hardly anything rising to that level. Nominations don't really matter much, since it is the election that actually elects people. If another name is added to the ballot, that does not prevent voters from voting for anyone else they may want to, even those not nominated.

Now, if he had ruled that you could not vote, we might be in a very different situation, but merely permitting you to make nominations is hardly an abridgment of your basic rights as a member. You were not forced to make a nomination, and you were free to vote for anyone you wanted to.

What harm was done to you, and what rights were violated, by letting people make nominations when they had not asked to. I'll grant you that the president ruled improperly, but what is the harm suffered?

[Josh Martin]

So what you're saying is that even though i did object at the time....when the president overruled my objection (which is against the rules)

Well, no, the President is supposed to rule on your Point of Order, and he ruled it not well taken. What was against the rules was denying your right to Appeal.

i am SOL basically because i didn't have the exact page of Robert's Rules out at the meeting to prove he was wrong in his actions.

No, you're SOL because you didn't have the next step in the procedure to use when the President ignores an Appeal. The next step is, essentially, to stand and state the question on the Appeal yourself.

Really? It ends like this? because the president broke the rules and i coudln't point it out immediately at the given meeting?

With respect to the rule violations, yes, it ends like this, but you could take disciplinary action against the President.

Our organization has 28 people. We had 4 people running for office. One member got 11 votes, one got 8, and the other two got 3 votes. in a case like this does the member who received 11 votes win? or do the 28 members revote on the two top 2 candidates for a majority vote to declaire a winner? This is another issue in question at the moment.

Again, it's too late to complain now (assuming the President already declared a winner), but for future reference, you would revote on all four candidates, not just the top two.

By the way, if the President is ignoring Appeals, that's quite serious. I think it's time for a new President. See FAQ #20, and read RONR, 10th ed., pg. 642 for the procedure to follow when the chair ignores an Appeal.

What harm was done to you, and what rights were violated, by letting people make nominations when they had not asked to. I'll grant you that the president ruled improperly, but what is the harm suffered?

I agree that in the grand scheme of things, reopening nominations without a majority vote is small potatoes. I'm more concerned by the fact that the President apparently declared a candidate elected who had less than a majority in favor. Even more dangerous is that the President thinks he can simply ignore Appeals.