kcarsarebest Posted April 8, 2011 at 04:42 AM Report Posted April 8, 2011 at 04:42 AM A group has used a constitutional review in an attempt to alter an election term is this legal?The current board is elected until 2012 by virtue of the present Constitution, a review committee has presented a constitutional revision which states an election shall occur in 2011. Is this appropriate where the parties were already appointed/elected until 2012?Thanks
Kim Goldsworthy Posted April 8, 2011 at 05:36 AM Report Posted April 8, 2011 at 05:36 AM A group has used a constitutional review in an attempt to alter an election term. Is this legal?The current board is elected until 2012 by virtue of the present Constitution, a review committee has presented a constitutional revision which states an election shall occur in 2011.Is this appropriate where the parties were already appointed/elected until 2012?Anyone can propose amendments. That violates no rule in Robert's Rules of Order.I have not read the text of your committee's document. So I cannot say if your paraphrase is accurate, or is sensible.So, I cannot say if their "revision" is "appropriate". (Your terms.)Context is everything.
jstackpo Posted April 8, 2011 at 06:50 AM Report Posted April 8, 2011 at 06:50 AM RONR does note, however, that bylaw amendments can alter conditions for people in the midst of their terms in office - p. 579 - so your review group may be proposing a legitimate change.You, at the meeting when these changes come up, can propose that specific changes be delayed by adopting provisos prior to voting on the bylaw amendments - see p. 578 ff. Or simply defeat the amendment proposals.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.