Guest Spike Posted December 14, 2011 at 01:04 AM Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 at 01:04 AM We just had elections and voted new board members now the old board members refuse to turn over the spots. What can you do. They say that it was not a legal meeting for elections but the president, Vic president and treasurer did not go to the meeting ( to stop the elections ) but the secretary did ran the meeting and new officers. were put in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 14, 2011 at 04:30 AM Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 at 04:30 AM We just had elections and voted new board members now the old board members refuse to turn over the spots. What can you do. They say that it was not a legal meeting for elections but the president, Vic president and treasurer did not go to the meeting ( to stop the elections ) but the secretary did ran the meeting and new officers. were put in.Well, this is a practical rather than a parliamentary suggestion, but you might want to have the secretary issue a certified copy of the election results, and take that to the bank, so they know better than to honor instructions from the former officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 14, 2011 at 05:00 AM Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 at 05:00 AM We just had elections and voted new board members now the old board members refuse to turn over the spots. What can you do.See RONR, 11th ed., Sections 61 and 63 for information on disciplinary proceedings for the members (they are no longer officers, despite their delusions to the contrary). I suspect that some non-parliamentary issues may be involved as well, so you may need to talk to a lawyer, or your organization's bank, etc., depending on what exactly is involved.They say that it was not a legal meeting for elections but the president, Vic president and treasurer did not go to the meeting ( to stop the elections ) but the secretary did ran the meeting and new officers. were put in.Well, if the officers are claiming that the meeting and/or the elections are invalid on the basis that the President, Vice President, and Treasurer were not present, they are mistaken. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 453, lines 3-7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted December 14, 2011 at 12:28 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 at 12:28 PM They say that it was not a legal meeting for elections but the president, Vic president and treasurer did not go to the meeting ( to stop the elections ) but the secretary did ran the meeting and new officers. were put in.Are you saying that it is their (P, VP, T) position that without one/any/all of them present, the meeting was "illegal"? Or, was there some other issue (besides their absence) with the meeting/election that makes them think there was a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spike Posted December 14, 2011 at 06:05 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 at 06:05 PM They are saying without them there at the meeting ( P, VP, T ) you can not hold a legal meeting. But the president sent a text that said that he would have the secretary run the meeting as long as there were 10 members to have a legal meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted December 14, 2011 at 06:15 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 at 06:15 PM They are saying without them there at the meeting ( P, VP, T ) you can not hold a legal meeting. But the president sent a text that said that he would have the secretary run the meeting as long as there were 10 members to have a legal meeting.Nothing in RONR supports this idea. So, unless your bylaws contain some such rule, all you need to hold a meeting and conduct business is to meet quorum requirements. The president, incidentally, does not get to choose in advance who will chair a meeting at which president and VP are absent -- that is for the assembly to decide, on the spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted December 14, 2011 at 07:41 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 at 07:41 PM They are saying without them there at the meeting ( P, VP, T ) you can not hold a legal meeting. But the president sent a text that said that he would have the secretary run the meeting as long as there were 10 members to have a legal meeting.Assuming you had a quorum (is that number 10 in your bylaws?), and barring any impropriety in the election, you have new officers. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.