Guest John Posted October 6, 2011 at 08:38 PM Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 at 08:38 PM In my organization, the right to choose the next president is rotated among the 6 divisions, with each one getting their nominee, who serves for a year. The bylaws say that "the division next in order shall name the president for the following year." My question is whether this is in the nature of a rule of order and could, therefore, be suspended by a 2/3 vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted October 6, 2011 at 08:55 PM Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 at 08:55 PM Doesn't sound like a rule of order to me. And it also sounds like it may be a rule protecting the rights of a minority (the particular division whose turn it is to choose the president), and that type of rule is not easy to suspend even if it is a rule of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted October 6, 2011 at 09:05 PM Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 at 09:05 PM In my organization, the right to choose the next president is rotated among the 6 divisions, with each one getting their nominee, who serves for a year. The bylaws say that "the division next in order shall name the president for the following year."My question is whether this is in the nature of a rule of order and could, therefore, be suspended by a 2/3 vote.At first blush, I would say no, since there's no indication that this has anything to do with a meeting and thus would not be a rule of order. Your bylaws need to be read as a whole, however, and not just a sentence at a time.That said, if it is something like two divisions wish to exchange turns in the rotation, there's no reason they couldn't independently agree to nominate the person selected by the other, or--if they have the power to delegate--even delegate the power to nominate to each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dglynch Posted October 6, 2011 at 09:57 PM Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 at 09:57 PM I'll take a stand and say this is definitely not a rule in the nature of a rule of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GcT Posted October 6, 2011 at 11:51 PM Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 at 11:51 PM Dan Lynch has it spot on. Clearly the rotation of the presidency is a matter of the organization's business -- and just as clearly, it does not take place in a meeting. (That's on p. 15 of my old book, one of the copies generously donated around 2001 by Jonathan and George. Per Dr Stackpole's formula, that's on p. 15.453 in you Illuminati's copies of the 11th.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.