Guest Dan Posted April 15, 2011 at 12:57 AM Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 12:57 AM We had our BOD elections and there was one open seat. Two seat had oppositions, After the elections were over and the meeting adjourned one of the losing members requested to fill the open seat. This was approved by the secretary who was over seeing the election. Is this action in violation of Roberts Rule of Order? Please help!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted April 15, 2011 at 01:05 AM Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 01:05 AM We had our BOD elections and there was one open seat. Two seat had oppositions, After the elections were over and the meeting adjourned one of the losing members requested to fill the open seat. This was approved by the secretary who was over seeing the election. Is this action in violation of Roberts Rule of Order? Please help!!!!Let am not clear on what happened. You say there is one open seat and two seats with opposition. How was the open seat not filled during the election with the other two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted April 15, 2011 at 01:05 AM Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 01:05 AM We had our BOD elections and there was one open seat. Two seat had oppositions, After the elections were over and the meeting adjourned one of the losing members requested to fill the open seat. This was approved by the secretary who was over seeing the election. Is this action in violation of Roberts Rule of Order? Yes, it's a violation. Nothing happens after the meeting is adjourned.If the election was incomplete (and it's not clear to me just how many open seats there were), you keep voting until someone is (properly) elected.You might ask your secretary to show you the rule that says she can do what she did. And ask your president why he wasn't overseeing the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dan Posted April 15, 2011 at 01:09 AM Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 01:09 AM We had our BOD elections and there was one open seat. Two seat had oppositions, After the elections were over and the meeting adjourned one of the losing members requested to fill the open seat. This was approved by the secretary who was over seeing the election. Is this action in violation of Roberts Rule of Order? Please help!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dan Posted April 15, 2011 at 01:18 AM Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 01:18 AM I'm sorry I should have been a little clearer. There were 17 seats up for election ..14 seats were un opposed ....2 seats had opposition ...and one seat remained open (due to the complexity of the position)One of the losers of the oposed seats requested to fill the open seat after the elections results were called and the meeting was adjourned. This request was approved by the, out going, secretary with out the knowledge of any other members. The election was complete and the open seat would be filled with and appointment at the next BOD meeting.The President could not over see the election since his seat had opposition. The Past President and Out going Secretary were appointed to over see the elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted April 15, 2011 at 01:23 AM Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 01:23 AM Well, there are a few confusing points still, but the main error is that the secretary had no business doing that.You still have an incomplete election for that "17th seat" - run an election soonest, like next meeting. It is not a vacancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted April 15, 2011 at 01:32 AM Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 01:32 AM The election was complete and the open seat would be filled with and appointment at the next BOD meeting.Nope. The election is incomplete and any mid-term vacancy-filling rules don't apply (though, as always, your rules may say otherwise).The President could not over see the election since his seat had opposition. The Past President and Out going Secretary were appointed to over see the elections.The president still should have presided (that's his job) but that's water under the bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dan Posted April 15, 2011 at 02:00 AM Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 02:00 AM Well, there are a few confusing points still, but the main error is that the secretary had no business doing that.You still have an incomplete election for that "17th seat" - run an election soonest, like next meeting. It is not a vacancy.In the past when there were open seats after the election ....they were filled with Presidental appointments after BOD approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted April 15, 2011 at 02:10 AM Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 02:10 AM In the past when there were open seats after the election ....they were filled with Presidental appointments after BOD approval.Well, as far as RONR is concerned, it's not yet "after the election" since the election hasn't been completed (there's no rule that says the election is over when the meeting is over).Again, your rules may vary but provisions for filling vacancies in unexpired terms don't usually apply to incomplete elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 15, 2011 at 04:26 AM Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 04:26 AM In the past when there were open seats after the election ....they were filled with Presidental appointments after BOD approval.That is completely improper. You cannot have open seats after an election, because until the seats are filled the election is NOT over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 15, 2011 at 04:33 AM Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 04:33 AM I'm sorry I should have been a little clearer. There were 17 seats up for election ..14 seats were un opposed ....2 seats had opposition ...and one seat remained open (due to the complexity of the position)I'm still confused. There were 17 seats up for election. How are these seats different? How did you know which ones were contested? Are these not identical seats? Are they actually different offices?Because when I hear that you are electing a board of 17 seats, I envision a ballot with the instructions "Vote for 17", and you vote for up to 17 names. But then it would be impossible to have contested seats unless you had more than 17 candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Ralph Posted April 15, 2011 at 02:41 PM Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 02:41 PM Judging from the reference to "the complexity of the position", I imagine they (or some of them) are named offices.But some clarity from Guest_Dan would be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.