out of order Posted April 7, 2011 at 01:01 AM Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 01:01 AM Our vice president will not put a name on the ballot for the new election of board members because this person doesn't meet all the criterior stated in the by-laws. (they have not attended enough board meetings). One of our meetings was cancelled and two of the meeting dates were changed. In the past, our board has been selective in which by-laws they enforce. Because of the inconsistancy of enforcing by-laws, as well as the change of meeting dates, does this person have any options? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted April 7, 2011 at 01:04 AM Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 01:04 AM No. (Although I can't be really sure of my "No" without reading your bylaws in full. But I'm not going to. That is your job as a member.)Make a strong effort to really follow the bylaws consistently in the future to be fair to all the members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted April 7, 2011 at 02:58 AM Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 02:58 AM Our vice president ...will not put a name on the ballot for the new election of board members because [reason]....In the past, our board has been selective in which by-laws they enforce. Because of the inconsistency of enforcing by-laws, as well as the change of meeting dates, does this person have any options?"Vice president"?Q. How did your vice president, of all people, get into the mix?Ignore your vice president.Do you ballots as you wish them to look.Do not depend on your vice president for anything regarding ballots.He can't do the job, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
out of order Posted April 7, 2011 at 04:48 AM Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 04:48 AM Our vice president, according to our by-laws, is in charge of the nomination process. In the past, we had a nominating committee. I'm not sure why the VP is controlling things (maybe a conflict of interest?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 7, 2011 at 04:57 AM Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 04:57 AM Our vice president, according to our by-laws, is in charge of the nomination process. In the past, we had a nominating committee. I'm not sure why the VP is controlling things (maybe a conflict of interest?).Well if he is actually in charge according to your bylaws, then a parenthesized maybe is not going to be persuasive against that.If it was one way in the past and another way now, it must have changed at some point. Do you remember the bylaws being amended? Does anyone else? Can you find it in the past minutes of past meetings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted April 7, 2011 at 10:47 AM Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 10:47 AM Our vice president, according to our by-laws, is in charge of the nomination process. In the past, we had a nominating committee. I'm not sure why the VP is controlling things (maybe a conflict of interest?).I'm not inviting a bylaw copy'n'paste. That said.... what DO your bylaws say about this? Obviously, it is not the RONR norm which is what sent KG spinning off (although it didn't warrant a Yikes! or Yowza! or even a frowny-face). I would hope your bylaws don't look likeArticle XXIX - The Nominating ProcessSection 1 "The Vice president is in charge."I don't think there's any necessary "conflict of interest" here. RONR discourages the President from being on the nominating committee, although to be honest, he may be the fairest in the bunch based on some postings here similar to yours detailing a "corrupt" (yet properly formed) nominating committee.Our vice president will not put a name on the ballot for the new election of board members because this person doesn't meet all the criterior stated in the by-laws. (they have not attended enough board meetings). One of our meetings was cancelled and two of the meeting dates were changed. In the past, our board has been selective in which by-laws they enforce. Because of the inconsistancy of enforcing by-laws, as well as the change of meeting dates, does this person have any options?If a person does not meet the bylaw-specified qualifications to be a board member, then that shouldn't be an argument. But you seem to detail the "failings" of this member to attend meetings, one of which was canceled (not allowed in RONR land) and two rescheduled (again, RONR doesn't favor this approach at all). So, Member X missed a "canceled" meeting, as did all board members. As for the "date-changed" meetings, was he notified of the change? Could he just not make it on that date? Was this done by a board that knew his schedule would conflict in order to force his absence?Other bylaws being selectively ignored, or enforced, by the board?You are planning to elect at least a new VP, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.