karen b Posted June 21, 2011 at 01:10 AM Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 at 01:10 AM We had an election for all officers of our union. All the votes were counted and all canidates were notified of thier position and the amt of votes. Unfortunately, after the electtion, the member that was elected as the 1st vice president, resigned (prior to taking office this september). Naturally, they went to the member with the 2nd most votes in that category-that person declined. Now, rather than going to the next person in line, they went to a member that ran for a completely different office (2nd vice president) and lost-as the person to fill the position. I know this is wrong, but I need help and collecting data to prove them wrong...help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 21, 2011 at 02:02 AM Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 at 02:02 AM Who gets to fill vacancies, according to your bylaws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest karenb Posted June 21, 2011 at 02:27 AM Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 at 02:27 AM By laws states to move unto the next successor and this really is not a vacancy, since the position doess not begin till sept. And bylaws also state to refer to roberts rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 21, 2011 at 02:55 AM Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 at 02:55 AM By laws states to move unto the next successor and this really is not a vacancy, since the position doess not begin till sept. And bylaws also state to refer to roberts rulesI would say it was a vacancy, since the election was completed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted June 21, 2011 at 03:03 AM Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 at 03:03 AM By laws states to move unto the next successorNot exactly sure what that means. Are you saying that the 2nd VP becomes 1st VP, the 3rd VP becomes 2nd VP, and so on with the lowest ranking office of VP being vacant?this really is not a vacancy, since the position doess not begin till sept. That is debatable. When someone decides they don't want to serve in the time period between when they accepted the office and when they would have taken office there exists a sort of netherworld. The election became complete when the winner accepted the office (explicitly or tacitly by not declining it) so you don't have an incomplete election but you really can't cause an office to become vacant when you are not in the office yet. I would lean towards this being treated as a vacancy because the election is complete and (unless he is convinced to serve) a vacancy will come into being in September which might as well be filled now. Or it could be treated as a situation where the member must resign the office in September and then the vacancy filling provisions would kick in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted June 21, 2011 at 05:50 AM Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 at 05:50 AM And as for "Naturally, they went to the member with the 2nd most votes":Oh no, no, no. And certainly not "naturally." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest advocate Posted June 21, 2011 at 11:31 AM Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 at 11:31 AM we only have a 1st and 2nd vp. The 2nd vp that was elected, stands in that position-come September. It is the 'outgoing' 2nd vp-who lost in their bid for a second term as 2nd vp, that is being brought in as the NEW 1st vp. Needless to say, the person that was 3rd in rank for 1st vp had more members votes, than the person that was seeking reelection as 2nd vp. (Even though it is NOT the same position). The proper thing would be to hold another election, but there is no time. We are teachers, therefore, out of session for summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted June 21, 2011 at 05:54 PM Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 at 05:54 PM we only have a 1st and 2nd vp. The 2nd vp that was elected, stands in that position-come September. It is the 'outgoing' 2nd vp-who lost in their bid for a second term as 2nd vp, that is being brought in as the NEW 1st vp. Needless to say, the person that was 3rd in rank for 1st vp had more members votes, than the person that was seeking reelection as 2nd vp. (Even though it is NOT the same position). The proper thing would be to hold another election, but there is no time. We are teachers, therefore, out of session for summer."Needless to say"??!?You're teachers??!?If you want to get together over the summer, the FBI will feed you to crocodiles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karen b Posted June 21, 2011 at 08:01 PM Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 at 08:01 PM "Needless to say"??!?You're teachers??!?If you want to get together over the summer, the FBI will feed you to crocodiles?Well,one may think that-trying to get some of these people together. We do have a national convention June 29th-July 6th-but everyone has scheduled vacations...it does get crazy...and some do work over the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted June 23, 2011 at 05:08 AM Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 at 05:08 AM Well,one may think that-trying to get some of these people together. We do have a national convention June 29th-July 6th-but everyone has scheduled vacations...it does get crazy...and some do work over the summer.I can't keep track of your VP's (and I bet I'm not the only one, or you would have had more replies). If you can't get this mishmosh straightened out at your convention, or somehow pull together enough of your members to have a meeting over the summer, you will have to deal with all this during the term, or otherwise whenever you can meet. I'll say this. Whenever I read "needless to say" -- or "naturally" -- I figure the odds are that the writer (or speaker) is about to demonstrate that he or she has been badly, flagrantly, misinformed.So it is here. Original Poster "advocate" says, "Needless to say, the person that was 3rd in rank for 1st vp had more members votes...." advocate. Please look in your bylaws to see whether they - ill-advisedly -- say anything about the runner-ups in an election, because unless the bylaws (bizarrely) do, then just forget about them. Second in rank, third in rank -- there is no significance. That is no sane way to fill a vacancy. Me, Chris H, or J. J. have as much claim to that VP throne as anyone who ran and lost in the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.