Guest ST41 Posted December 13, 2011 at 03:21 AM Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 at 03:21 AM If it is found that someone voted that was not in good standings. Is there a a right by the body to make a motion to vote again on the grounds that there was a miss vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted December 13, 2011 at 04:15 AM Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 at 04:15 AM If it is found that someone voted that was not in good standings. Is there a a right by the body to make a motion to vote again on the grounds that there was a miss vote.If someone ineligible to vote voted, and it effected the result, the vote is null and void (pp. 416, ll. 30-33; 423, ll. 17-22).If a main motion is rejected, it may be be renewed at the next session, if otherwise in order(p. 337, #2). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted December 13, 2011 at 02:57 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 at 02:57 PM Make sure that 'not in good standing' is clearly defined in your rules, and that it actually means the person in question did not have the right to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted December 13, 2011 at 03:26 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 at 03:26 PM More on "good (or "bad") standing":In Good Standing:RONR/11 defines the term "member in good standing" on p. 6 in the footnote as referring to a member whose membership rights are not in suspension, either as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings (Chapter XX) or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws of the organization.So if you use the phrase "in good standing" in the bylaws, be sure to define exactly what you mean: what causes a member not to be in good standing, what he has to do to get back into the good graces of the association, &c. Also, you should specify which membership rights, duties, privileges, &c. are lost or suspended (or retained) by a member as a consequence of his being in "bad standing" as distinct from his being in good standing or ceasing to be a member at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ST41 Posted December 14, 2011 at 01:15 AM Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 at 01:15 AM The member in question in our bylaws as a new member has 6 months befor he can vote and he was in his 5 month. This vote was a white ball black ball vote where it was 6 white to 3 black which the board said that it was a no because 3 black ball is a no but if there was 2 it would have been a yes. So his vote may have been the vote to change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 14, 2011 at 03:20 AM Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 at 03:20 AM The member in question in our bylaws as a new member has 6 months befor he can vote and he was in his 5 month. This vote was a white ball black ball vote where it was 6 white to 3 black which the board said that it was a no because 3 black ball is a no but if there was 2 it would have been a yes. So his vote may have been the vote to change it.Then a point of order can be raised at the next meeting that the vote should be considered null and void. However, I would also point out that if this vote took place in a meeting of the general membership, then the opinion of the board on the matter would be of no particular interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted December 14, 2011 at 03:29 AM Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 at 03:29 AM The member in question in our bylaws as a new member has 6 months befor he can vote and he was in his 5 month. This vote was a white ball black ball vote where it was 6 white to 3 black which the board said that it was a no because 3 black ball is a no but if there was 2 it would have been a yes. So his vote may have been the vote to change it.Okay, I'll bite. Since a vote of 6-3 would satisfy both a majority as well as 2/3 voting requirement for the motion, shall we assume that there was a minimum voting threshold of 3/4 for the motion involved? Or is there some other significance to 3 black balls equaling "a no?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 14, 2011 at 04:12 AM Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 at 04:12 AM The member in question in our bylaws as a new member has 6 months befor he can vote and he was in his 5 month. This vote was a white ball black ball vote where it was 6 white to 3 black which the board said that it was a no because 3 black ball is a no but if there was 2 it would have been a yes. So his vote may have been the vote to change it.Based on this information, the vote must be retaken, since the ineligible member's vote cannot be identified and it could have affected the result. J. J. has provided the relevant citations.Okay, I'll bite. Since a vote of 6-3 would satisfy both a majority as well as 2/3 voting requirement for the motion, shall we assume that there was a minimum voting threshold of 3/4 for the motion involved? Or is there some other significance to 3 black balls equaling "a no?"It seems likely that this is an instance of the procedure described in RONR, 11th ed., pg. 412, footnote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.