ELECTIONS

[Guest CHRISTOPHER]

Shortly after our election, the corresponding secretary resigned from her position. According to the by-laws a special election needed to occur. Our nominating committee, solicited nominations, all members who were nominated, declined the nomination. I am now looking for suggestions on what is the right thing to do next. Our By-laws are silent on what to do next. Is it up to the council? Do they just appoint? Suggestions?

This may not be the right forum but any help would be appreciated.

[Edgar Guest]

I am now looking for suggestions on what is the right thing to do next.

 

The right thing to do next is to hold the election as (presumably) required by your bylaws. It doesn't matter if no one was nominated. You can vote for them (or anyone else) anyway.

[Bruce Lages]

Following up on Edgar's post - at the meeting at which your special election will be held, your presiding officer can announce that nominations are in order for the position of corresponding secretary. If one nomination is made and your bylaws don't require a ballot vote, then the chair can declare the sole nominee elected by acclamation. If you have more than one nomination, go ahead and have the election. Note, however, that this assumes that your bylaws don't require all nominations to come from the nominating committee.

 

If you don't get any nominees, then pass out blank ballots and tell everyone to vote for their choice for the position. A majority of the votes cast which include the name of an eligible candidate is necessary to elect. SInce no nominations are made with this method, you can use it regardless of any bylaw-imposed restrictions on the nomination process.

[Guest CHRISTOPHER]

So if no one wants it, we will have to go through a revision of the bylaws to maybe combine jobs, appoint or some other type of revision. Any suggestions?

[Gary c Tesser]

So if no one wants it, we will have to go through a revision of the bylaws to maybe combine jobs, appoint or some other type of revision. Any suggestions?

 

What's wrong with Mr Guest's and Mr Lages's suggestions?  They're from the book.  (And no, this is not the wrong forum to ask about parliamentary procedure.)

 

If nobody is willing to be elected, then I don't see how appointing anyone would be any improvement (assuming that someone can refuse an office he's elected to, but cannot refuse an office he's appointed to -- do your rules really specify that??).

 

If your question is, why doesn't anyone want the position; or, how can we make it less unpalatable, then maybe rearrange duties, or reduce them; if I correctly understand what you mean by "combine jobs," that would make the corresponding secretary's position more repugnant, not less.

 

Remember that RONR does not require that officers be members, so unless your own rules do, you have a pool of 7 billion potential candidates out there, and that's only counting the humans.  (Not that I suggest you try to count all seven billion humans.  That's a thankless job, and would take a lifetime.  And the way they reproduce, you'd never get done.)

 

(One little suggestion:  Don't say "revision" when talking about amending the bylaws:  in that context, it's a technical term.)

[Timothy]

you have a pool of 7 billion potential candidates out there

 

 

You can remove me from that list. I already hold a similar position in an association and I'm not looking to take on another, at this time.

[Josh Martin]

So if no one wants it, we will have to go through a revision of the bylaws to maybe combine jobs, appoint or some other type of revision. Any suggestions?

 

If what you're getting at with "combine jobs" is that someone who is already serving in another office is willing to serve as Corresponding Secretary, I'd note that nothing in RONR prevents someone from holding two officer positions. So in that case, combining jobs would not be necessary.