C&B guidlines for elections

[Guest Beth]

According to our C&B

Nominations for officers-

-Any active member of the assoc. during the month of Feb. may nominate a candidate for Pres. or Treasurer in the odd numbered years and VP in the even numbered years.

-All nomination papers must be sent to the Election Committee Chairman by the second Fri. of March by 4:30 P.M.

-The Election Committee Chairman shall contact all nominees for confirmation of acceptance of the nomination. Upon accepting the nomination the nominee must submit a brief information sheet to the Election Comm. Chair no later than 4:30 on the last Friday of march. The Election. Comm. Chair shall furnish a list of all nominees, upon request, to all Exec. Committee members

-The Elec. Comm. Chair shall publish, to the Executive Committee and the General Membership a list of all candidates and the candidates' information at least one month prior to the election date.

Balloting -

At a General Membership meeting in May, which will be held the Monday before Memorial Day, the members shall vote for Executive officers (President and Treasurer in the odd numbered years and VP and Sec. in the even number years) by secret ballot. Write-ins on ht ballots will not be allowed. Absentee ballots will be done only with justification determined by the Executive Committee. The Election Committee shall make the results of the election known to the President of the association, and the members at the General Membership meeting, and shall publish the election results no later than the last day of the school year. New officers shall be installed at the Aug./Sept. meeting. The first meeting of General Membership will be held on the evening fo all staff in service day. Depending on the start date for the school year the meeting may be held in August or Sept.

We did not have a quorum at the Monday prior to Memorial Day so we could not have an election and no one made a motion nor adopted a motion to Fox the Tome to Which to Adjourn. There were no nominations for President and two nominations for treasurer but the president said since we did not have a quorum and we had a fixed meeting per C&B the elections would not take place this year and officers would stay status quo however the president was resigning in August. At the August meeting the new president (vice president stepped up to the president's position) started the meeting and one of the members made a motion to do elections. The president considered the motion a dead motion as it was a violation of the C&B which clearly state president will be voted on, on the Monday before Memorial day in the even number years.

A hand full of the members do not like what the president said so they went to our UniServ office and petitioned the association for an election of officers across the board. The new president (that they do not like) said they cannot do that as the C&B has a set date for elections, no motion was made for a fixed time to adjourn, and RRO says if you have a fixed date on which regular meeting of the society are to be held they must be held on that day unless you have the word "unless" in the wording. As you will note from the wording above it does not have the word "unless" in it. The president says the only way elections can be held at this point is if there is an amendment to the C&B. But our UniServ office said the members want an election and the WEAC attorney says in his "opinion" the members are entitled to an election. Fortunately our C&B says RRO of the parliamentary authority for the Association on all questions not covered by the C&B and such standing rules as the general membership may adopt. With the wording (typed right out of our C& above, can there be an election at this time. Or do the members have to follow the C&B and make an amendment to fit what they want and then have an election? Does a UniServ have the authority to demand an election because in their "opinion" one is warrented?

[Guest Nancy N.]

I think I’m just touching the edges here, but …

1. Beth, is “C&B which clearly state president will be voted on, on the Monday before Memorial day in the even number years” a simple clerical error -- it looks to me as if the rule is clear, that the president is voted on in odd-numbered years (like now)?

2. ( a ) Beth, does your organization’s rules defer to UniServe? (I’m not sure what that is; googling didn’t help. -- And bear in mind, we on the Robert’s Rules Website Forum’s weekend overnight (USA) crew don’t need to know the answer -- your organization, in determining what to do, is who does.

2 ( b ) Similarly, does the organization defer to WEAC? (Again, the answer to this will help get a solution for you, not me.)

3. Arghh. Maybe you get to hold elections, but without any valid nominating, and with write-in ballots disallowed, how could anyone vote? The organization might, indeed, have to amend its bylaws (“Constitution and Bylaws,” in your organization’s case?) to mmmmore reasonably reflect current circumstances, including reality -- although I think not because of what the president (previous or -- maybe -- current) says.

4. You might get sensible, experienced, even wise opinions here, or elsewhere – but be mindful that the ultimate interpreter of your organization’s bylaws, and the consequences of what the bylaws say, is the assembly of your organization itself. RONR does provide some very useful principles of interpretation (around p. 588 - 591).

5. Overall, this Robert’s Rules website forum is probably not a satisfactory venue for dealing with your organization’s problem. You might try the Bylaws and Such Forum, nearby but unrelated, but you might need to go and consult an on-site parliamentarian.

__________

(N. B. Esteemed moderator, could we move this discussion to General Discussion? I don’t think it’s in the purview of the experienced parliamentarians and registered Democrats for whom the Advanced Discussion area is intended. No offense intended, Beth….)

[Trina]

...

the president said since we did not have a quorum and we had a fixed meeting per C&B the elections would not take place this year and officers would stay status quo

...

How is the term of office of the officers defined in your governing documents? Is there a phrase like "or until their successors are elected" in there somewhere? Exact wording is important.

I realize this doesn't respond to the questions you asked -- just trying to nail down some additional information at the outset.

[Guest Beth]

Nancy - Thank you for replying.

1. Yes it was a typo the president is voted on in the odd numbered years, the election was to take place in May 2011. With no quorum it did not happen. It was brought up again at the August 2011 meeting but given the specific date in the C&B. This C&B language was ratified in Nov 2006 purposely so the members of the Association could mark their calendar every year and know there would be an election of some sort on the Monday before Memorial day.

2.

(a) UniServ - Personally our UniServ office is a joke, they are suppose to be there for any association to help them out with union issues however they are not that knowledgable with RRO or parliamentary procedure, and often give bad advise. Our UniServ office is BLUE in Green Bay, WI. According to our C&B "The Association shall hold membership in the Bay Land United Educators (BLUE) under the rules of said council and shall pay such dues as is uniformly required of all members." Our C&B does not refer to them as having an say in our Association they are merely there for advise and help in running the Association.

( WEAC (Wisconsin Education Association Council) Our Association is the Support Staff Associaion in a school district. WEAC is there for legal support however it is hard to get legal advise from them as our UniServ Director demands we go through her. Again our Bylaws only say we shall be affiliated with WEAC under its rules. They have no say in our Association, they generally step in for legal matters in a greivance process.

3. I agree that we cannot hold elections at this point because of the timelines stated in the C&B. It clearly states when the nominations are to be in to the Election Chair, the bios need to be sent out, and the election takes place on the Monday before Memorial Day in the odd number years, which is already past. Since our C&B is silent on what to do if we pass the date of the election, we turn to RRO which states in lack of a quorum you need to have a motion for a fixed meeting time, this was not done. No motion dead issue it cannot be postponed to another meeting. RRO also states if you have a specified date, as we do the Monday before Memorial Day in the odd numbered years, that is the date the business must be taken care of since our Bylaws do not say "unless" which would allow us to change the date. At this point and time I beleive the only way an election can be held is if the handful of members ask for a meeting to elect a C&B committee to amend the bylaws, follow the C&B lanugage on admend the bylaws, once ratified, they can do as the amended bylaws state. Am I correct on that?

(4) So what your saying is regardless of what BLUE or WEAC say it is the Association's member's interpretation of the bylaws that rules. Those of us on the committee know the meaning of the language. We intended for the date to be put in there so there would be no arguments on this. Plus the August of 2009 meeting the president clearly made an announcement at the end of the meeting after 16 years she would be stepping down from President, if anyone was interested in the position to please contact her and she would be more than happy to let them shadow her for the year. One member raised her hand and asked what happens if there are no nominations for president and she said then the office would stay status quo however she would be handing the gavel over the the vp at the May meeting. She was nominated through the nomination process however she turned down her nomination, which left the Association with no nominations for President and no quorum to vote anyway!

(5) I have suggested that the Executive Committee hire an outside parliamentarian - They cancelled the meeting to get some legal advise however a WEAC attorney sent out a memo to the whole association on Friday that the elections will be held on Monday, November 14 and he will be present for the meeting along with the BLUE UniServ Director. I personally do not believe they have the right to dictate our meetings. However we are stuck in a delima as to where you go to turn something like this in? Who regulates these kind of places. BLUE's board is staffed by local school employees, and they are funded by our dues! There is NO ONE for us to turn to so any help would be greatly appreciated!

Nancy thank you so much for your time!

[Guest Beth]

Trina - Any help would be greatly appreciated!

-Terms and Secession

a. Elections will be held yearly, as stated in Bylaws VIII - Election, with officers holding a 2 (two) year term and/or until their success are elected. President and Treasurer will be elected in odd years and Vice President and Secretary will be elected in even years. Classification Representatives to the Executive Committee will be elected in odd years. When negotiating a contract in the year the President position is up for election, the current President may continue to act as Chief Negotiator even if he/she is not re-elected. The new President may join te negotiation team upon being elected.

b. Whenever the offices of both President and Vice-President shall become vacant between elections, the remaining members of the Executive Committee shall choose one of their members to serve as president pro tempore until the next meeting of the General membership.

c. A special election to fill the balance of the V.P, Treasurer, or Secretary's unexpired term shall be conducted under procedures developed by the election committee and approved by the Executive Committee.

This wording would allow for an election of the VP (as she stepped into the President position per C&B language) however at this meeting Monday night, which was just confirmed on Friday by WEAC legal, there will be an election for Vice President, President, Treasurer and the Executive Committees (not the secretary because she is one of the petitioners). This clearly violates the C&B in many ways.

-the nomination process was not done correctly

-as of Friday 4:30 the members were not give a list of the nominees - Per C&B should be sent out one month prior to the meeting

-President/Treasurer shall be voted on at a General Membership (NOT A SPECIAL MEETING) which will be held the Monday before Memorial Day in the odd numbered years.

-Secretary/ V.P shall be voted on at a General Membership (NOT A SPECIAL MEETING) which will be held the Monday before Memorial Day in the even numbered years.

-Executive Committee shall be voted on at a General Membership (NOT A SPECIAL MEETING) which will be held the second Tuesday in January, in the odd number years.

-Our C&B state "Yearly, the President shall appoint an Audit Committee, and Election Committee, and any special committees necessary and shall discharge them upon completion of their duties. these committees shall operate according to rules approved by the Executive Committee. No officers of the Association shall serve on the Audit Committee." The Election Committee Chair was dismissed after the meeting in May however has taken it upon herself to run this election this elections without the authority of the President. We had no knowledge this election was coming up until Saturday November 5th an e-mail was sent out. Most members of the Association didn't know until Monday, November 7th and the election was scheduled for November 14th. The President of the Association sent out an e-mail on Tuesday November 8th, explaining the Elections Chair was released from her duties in May 2011 and had no business scheduling this election, the meeting was cancelled, she would be seeking legal advise and a meeting would be rescheduled at a later date to discuss this matter. The Election Chair sent out an e-mail on 11/10/11 stating she will be holding the elections and it will be on for the 14th, then on Friday, WEAC Legal sent out a memo to the association stating

This memorandum is in response to the inquiries made concerning the issues involving an election which I understand is scheduled for Monday, November 14, 2011, which I will attend. WEAC Vice-President Betsy Kippers, BLUE President Dean DeBroux, WEAC Organizer Paula Voelker, and Uniserv Director Kim Plaunt will also be present.

Having reviewed this matter in some detail, I believe the following facts are relevant:

1. Bylaw VIII – Elections, Section 4 – Balloting for Officers, states:

"At a General Membership meeting in May, which will be held the Monday before Memorial Day, the members shall vote for Executive Officers (President and Treasurer in the odd numbered years, and Vice-President and Secretary in the even numbered years) by secret ballot."

2. The May meeting did not have a quorum.

3. The next scheduled meeting was August 30, 2011.

4. An election was scheduled for the August meeting but the meeting was adjourned before elections were conducted.

5. Elections are now scheduled for November 14, 2011, pursuant to Bylaw II, Section 3.

It is my understanding that some members believe that elections may only be conducted at the May meeting. Other members believe that Roberts Rules of Order Revised allows for elections to be conducted at a subsequent meeting in which elections are noticed and a quorum is present. The Oconto Falls Educational Support Personnel Association Constitution and Bylaws do not state that elections may only be held at the May meeting. Roberts Rules of Order, 64, 11th Edition Revised, refers to what should occur when a quorum is not present and states in pertinent part as follows:

In the case of an annual meeting, where certain business for the year, as the election of officers, must be attended during the session, the meeting should fix a time for an adjourned meeting and then adjourn."

Given the importance of allowing for democratic elections, it is not surprising that Roberts Rules of Order provides for elections to be scheduled at a subsequent meeting in which a quorum is present.

Accordingly, it is my opinion that the membership is entitled to secret ballot elections of officers at a duly noticed meeting in which a quorum is present.

I trust this answers your inquiries.

What I do not understand is why is his opinion the one that matters? Our C&B states RRO shall be the parliamentary authority for the Association. I believe RRO states if no motion was made for a fixed time meeting this is a done deal and cannot be postponed?????

Again any advise would be greatly appreciated.

[Trina]

...

-Terms and Secession

a. Elections will be held yearly, as stated in Bylaws VIII - Election, with officers holding a 2 (two) year term and/or until their success are elected.

...

So, you do at least still have officers in those positions, until successors are elected. The 'and/or' is a bit mysterious in intent, but doesn't appear to take away from the fact that your officers are still in office. [And, I assume that 'success' actually reads 'successors' -- otherwise, who knows what the passage means...]

...

What I do not understand is why is his opinion the one that matters? Our C&B states RRO shall be the parliamentary authority for the Association. I believe RRO states if no motion was made for a fixed time meeting this is a done deal and cannot be postponed?????

Again any advise would be greatly appreciated.

The fact that the election was not held as specified in the bylaws means that you have what is called an 'incomplete election' -- it does not mean the organization should wait for May 2013 to elect people to those positions. You may want to look over some earlier threads dealing with related issues:

http://robertsrules....ection-meeting/

(see particularly the posts by Mr. Martin)

http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/6916-can-board-members-be-elected-with-no-quorum/

http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/6943-special-election/

Whether the upcoming Nov. 14 meeting was properly called according to your bylaws is another issue, as is the involvement of the Elections Committee chair who, according to your facts, was dismissed back in May.

Note that this forum deals with the rules in RONR; we can't interpret bylaws (which often requires reading them in their entirety, along with other documents that may define the relationship between the poster's organization and other entitites -- like 'UniServ' and 'WEAC' in your case) -- that is beyond the scope of the forum.

edited to add -- I don't know why the links above land somewhere in the middle of the threads -- seems to have something to do with the particular searches I did to find them -- anyway, just scroll up to post #1 if you follow the links... later: I managed to fix the first link, using Mr. Foulkes' suggestion, but the next one is intractable for some reason -- not sure why, but I shouldn't really spend more time on it now.

edited again -- On reflection, 'incomplete election' isn't quite accurate, since the election never got started at the May meeting. Other than that, however, I think my comments and references are still applicable.

[David A Foulkes]

edited to add -- I don't know why the links above land somewhere in the middle of the threads -- seems to have something to do with the particular searches I did to find them -- anyway, just scroll up to post #1 if you follow the links...

If you do a keyword search and open a thread that is returned, the link in the address bar will be to the specific post where that keyword has been found. When you want to link to the original post, scroll up to it and click on the "#1" at the right. That will pop up a dialogue box with a link to it that you can copy and paste, leading the person directly to the first post. This also works if you want to link directly to a follow-up (say, the 48th post).

[Josh Martin]

I believe RRO states if no motion was made for a fixed time meeting this is a done deal and cannot be postponed?????

The fact that the assembly did not make a motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn or to Postpone to a Certain Time (as it should have) is unfortunate, but it is not the end of the world in this case. Here are the rules in RONR which pertain to this situation:

-An election is a special order. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 357, lines 27-31)

-An unfinished special order becomes a special order for the following meeting, provided the next meeting is within a quarterly time interval. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 356, line 31 - pg. 357, line 6; pg. 358, lines 1-8)

-The meeting in August is within a quarterly time interval of the meeting in May, and the meeting in November is within a quarterly time interval of the meeting in August. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 89, line 34 - pg. 90, line 8)

-Rules in the Bylaws which are in the nature of rules of order may be suspended by a 2/3 vote. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 17, lines 22-25) Rules prescribing a deadline for nominations or prohibiting write-in votes are in the nature of rules of order.

So in my opinion, based upon the rules of RONR, the assembly can and should hold the elections at the Nov. 14th meeting. It is possible that the Bylaws provide otherwise, but that is a question for the society to interpret (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 588, line 25). See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591.

[Dan Honemann]

The fact that the assembly did not make a motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn or to Postpone to a Certain Time (as it should have) is unfortunate, but it is not the end of the world in this case. Here are the rules in RONR which pertain to this situation:

-An election is a special order. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 357, lines 27-31)

-An unfinished special order becomes a special order for the following meeting, provided the next meeting is within a quarterly time interval. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 356, line 31 - pg. 357, line 6; pg. 358, lines 1-8)

-The meeting in August is within a quarterly time interval of the meeting in May, and the meeting in November is within a quarterly time interval of the meeting in August. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 89, line 34 - pg. 90, line 8)

-Rules in the Bylaws which are in the nature of rules of order may be suspended by a 2/3 vote. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 17, lines 22-25) Rules prescribing a deadline for nominations or prohibiting write-in votes are in the nature of rules of order.

So in my opinion, based upon the rules of RONR, the assembly can and should hold the elections at the Nov. 14th meeting. It is possible that the Bylaws provide otherwise, but that is a question for the society to interpret (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 588, line 25). See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591.

It seems to me that if an organization’s bylaws require that a list of all nominees must be published to the membership at least one month prior to the election and that write-in votes are prohibited, then this bylaw prohibition renders write-in candidates ineligible for election, and may not be suspended.

Whether or not this accurately reflects the facts in this case is not at all clear to me, but maybe it does.

[Trina]

It seems to me that if an organization’s bylaws require that a list of all nominees must be published to the membership at least one month prior to the election and that write-in votes are prohibited, then this bylaw prohibition renders write-in candidates ineligible for election, and may not be suspended.

...

Are you saying that neither of the bolded bylaws provision is likely to be suspendable? Or only the prohibition on write-in votes?

[Sean Hunt]

Are you saying that neither of the bolded bylaws provision is likely to be suspendable? Or only the prohibition on write-in votes?

I would say that neither would be suspendable; because together they amount to a requirement of one month notice of a nomination, and a requirement for notice cannot be suspended.

[Gary Novosielski]

It seems to me that if an organization’s bylaws require that a list of all nominees must be published to the membership at least one month prior to the election and that write-in votes are prohibited, then this bylaw prohibition renders write-in candidates ineligible for election, and may not be suspended.

Are you saying that neither of the bolded bylaws provision is likely to be suspendable? Or only the prohibition on write-in votes?

The former provision would not seem to be in the nature of a rule or order to begin with, as it has application outside the context of a meeting.

[Gary Novosielski]

I would say that neither would be suspendable; because together they amount to a requirement of one month notice of a nomination, and a requirement for notice cannot be suspended.

Well, yes, but in the original bylaws in post #1, it is less obvious to me than it seems to be to Dan that the two provisions must be taken together.

The nomination provision outlines the method of nomination by petition, and how it is handled by the Election Committee (the de facto nominating committee). The only unusual provision there is that the Committee apparently does not "report" to the membership in the classic sense.

(Yet it could be argued that nomination from the floor would still be in order, as is typical even when a nominating committee is used. The notice requirement placed upon the Election Committee could be read as applying only to its own sanctioned nominees, without precluding later nominations from the floor, which are not explicitly prohibited.)

The no-write-ins requirement is in a different section, on elections, and is logically separable from the idea of a closed nomination process. That is, all of the provisions of the nominating process could be faithfully carried out with or without the possibility of write-in votes.

So, if the provisions can considered separately, then the latter would seem to be in the nature of a rule of order (and thus suspendable).

[Trina]

The former provision would not seem to be in the nature of a rule or order to begin with, as it has application outside the context of a meeting.

That does make sense; however, Mr. Martin seemed to think (post #8) that a rule prescribing a deadline for nominations was a suspendable rule. I wonder why...

[Gary Novosielski]

That does make sense; however, Mr. Martin seemed to think (post #8) that a rule prescribing a deadline for nominations was a suspendable rule. I wonder why...

Well, as you might guess, I would not be very quick to agree with him on that point.

But do I agree with the the rest of his post, including the fact that the elections remain a special order and can be taken up at the next meeting, and also with his view that the no-write-ins provision is probably* suspendable.

---

* having not read the bylaws in their entirety

[Guest Beth]

Thank you to everyone that has replied to this. I am so grateful that I am gaining some insight on what can/cannot be done!

We had a problem with elections in 2005. The nomination process was the same as originally written above however we did not have the wording "write ins on the ballots will not be allowed". We had a write in a few of the ballots and the election chair would not count them stating it did not follow the nomination process. One of our members circulated a petition stating the President ran a corrupt election. We had a meeting with a licensed parliamentarian and he said with the wording that is written in the C&B there is no way a write in ballot could be counted as they did not meet the timelines in the nomination process and suggested we revise the C&B to include "write ins on the ballots will not be allowed" which we did. So at this point go against what we have already been told by a licensed parliamentarian just because a handful of members want their own way?

-the election chair was dismissed in May but has taken it upon herself to set up this election even after the president sent her an e-mail telling her she is was not assigned to the committee this year.

-the nomination process was not followed - the meeting is in less than 24 hour and we still do not have a list of the nominees

-the balloting should take place a general meeting of the members not a special meeting called/cancelled/and confirmed three days before the election. (on a evening that we have a home Packer Game! )

I really would like to gain knowledge on issues like this and have to ask if the bylaw state how an election process is suppose to happen wouldn't the proper thing to do is to tell the members they are entitled to have the voting process however at this time the C&B prohibit that from happening. First we must amend the bylaws then follow the voting process with the newly revised ratified C&B? I have a feeling if we allow a few of the members to petition for an election knowing they are not following the process in the C&B we are setting a precedence for anyone that is unhappy to get a few friends to petition a meeting do what they want. Then what will the C&B stand for?

[Josh Martin]

It seems to me that if an organization’s bylaws require that a list of all nominees must be published to the membership at least one month prior to the election and that write-in votes are prohibited, then this bylaw prohibition renders write-in candidates ineligible for election, and may not be suspended.

Whether or not this accurately reflects the facts in this case is not at all clear to me, but maybe it does.

Fair enough. The Bylaws actually seem to prescribe a specific date. Would it be sufficient to provide a list of nominees one month prior to the new election date, or is the specific date (the second Friday of March) absolute?

So at this point go against what we have already been told by a licensed parliamentarian just because a handful of members want their own way?

There is no such thing as a "licensed parliamentarian," as there is no license required or granted for parliamentarians. You might be thinking of a Registered or Certified Parliamentarian (possibly with the word "Professional" added to either), which are credentials awarded by the National Association of Parliamentarians and the American Institute of Parliamentarians, respectively.

Notwithstanding the advice you have received from any professional parliamentarians working with the society or the members of this forum (and I would give more credence to the former, as that individual would have actually read your Bylaws and we have not), the fact remains that a society is the ultimate judge of its own Bylaws.

-the election chair was dismissed in May but has taken it upon herself to set up this election even after the president sent her an e-mail telling her she is was not assigned to the committee this year.

I'm not entirely clear on what role the Election Chair plays in scheduling or running your elections, since there is no such position in RONR. Check your Bylaws.

-the nomination process was not followed - the meeting is in less than 24 hour and we still do not have a list of the nominees

Well, based on the well-founded advice of my colleagues, I will disregard my earlier hasty response and agree that this violates an unsuspendable rule in your Bylaws, which is a problem.

-the balloting should take place a general meeting of the members not a special meeting called/cancelled/and confirmed three days before the election. (on a evening that we have a home Packer Game! )

A special meeting of the membership is still a general meeting of the members, however, it seems highly unlikely that a special meeting can be properly called with only three days notice (but check your Bylaws to be sure). The Packer game may be problematic in that it could prevent the assembly from having a quorum (again).

I really would like to gain knowledge on issues like this and have to ask if the bylaw state how an election process is suppose to happen wouldn't the proper thing to do is to tell the members they are entitled to have the voting process however at this time the C&B prohibit that from happening.

Well, based upon the additional facts in your latest post (and the advice of my colleagues), I think I am inclined to agree that the C&B prohibit the election from being held at this time. Whether they prohibit it from being held entirely seems less conclusive.

First we must amend the bylaws then follow the voting process with the newly revised ratified C&B?

If it is determined that there is no valid way to hold an election with the C&B as they currently stand, then yes, that would be the only option.

I have a feeling if we allow a few of the members to petition for an election knowing they are not following the process in the C&B we are setting a precedence for anyone that is unhappy to get a few friends to petition a meeting do what they want. Then what will the C&B stand for?

Certainly it is preferable to amend the C&B than to violate them, although it is up to the membership to interpret the C&B. I would note, however, that such interpretation takes place at a meeting, through the procedure of a Point of Order and any subsequent Appeal. Petitions have no parliamentary relevance.

[Dan Honemann]

Fair enough. The Bylaws actually seem to prescribe a specific date. Would it be sufficient to provide a list of nominees one month prior to the new election date, or is the specific date (the second Friday of March) absolute?

As I understand it, the relevant bylaw provisions are as follows:

“The Elec. Comm. Chair shall publish, to … the General Membership a list of all candidates … at least one month prior to the election date.”

“At a General Membership meeting in May, which will be held the Monday before Memorial Day, the members shall vote for Executive officers … by secret ballot. Write-ins on the ballots will not be allowed.”

Neither the notice requirement nor the prohibition against write-in votes, standing alone, would likely cause much of a problem, but the combination of the two appears to be deadly.

[Trina]

As I understand it, the relevant bylaw provisions are as follows:

“The Elec. Comm. Chair shall publish, to … the General Membership a list of all candidates … at least one month prior to the election date.”

“At a General Membership meeting in May, which will be held the Monday before Memorial Day, the members shall vote for Executive officers … by secret ballot. Write-ins on the ballots will not be allowed.”

Neither the notice requirement nor the prohibition against write-in votes, standing alone, would likely cause much of a problem, but the combination of the two appears to be deadly.

Was there a prohibition against nominations from the floor somewhere in there? I only saw the prohibition on write-in votes.

[Dan Honemann]

Was there a prohibition against nominations from the floor somewhere in there? I only saw the prohibition on write-in votes.

I suppose it depends upon whether or not you regard the requirement for the prior submission of nominations and publication of all names submitted at least 30 days prior to the election a prohibition against nominations from the floor.

[Trina]

I suppose it depends upon whether or not you regard the requirement for the prior submission of nominations and publication of all names submitted at least 30 days prior to the election a prohibition against nominations from the floor.

The people writing the bylaws may well have intended total control of the process. I just wasn't sure if they actually managed to prohibit floor nominations, since it doesn't seem to be there in black and white.

[Dan Honemann]

The people writing the bylaws may well have intended total control of the process. I just wasn't sure if they actually managed to prohibit floor nominations, since it doesn't seem to be there in black and white.

I understand, and would refer back to what I said in post #9, particularly the final sentence. I certainly do not want to be drawn into any effort to interpret the meaning of these particular bylaws.