Guest Jordan Grant Posted June 9, 2014 at 05:33 PM Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 at 05:33 PM Ok...here's the context: Founding meeting of a new electoral district association. When we arrive at the meeting there were 29 names on a white board -- people who were suggested to party officials to serve on the board (NOT 29 people there!). Party rules say that the board can be a maximum of 30 people. Asked if there are any nominations from the floor. There were 5 nominations from the floor, seconded and approved from the floor. This brought the total to 34. The chair of the meeting said that those present would vote off 4 of the 34 by secret ballot. When the results were tabulated 4 of the 5 nominations from the floor were "voted off." Thus leaving a board of 30. It seems to me that the 29 names that were on the white board (and again, not even in attendance) were not elected properly as per RROR. Is this a correct interpretation of the Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised? That the 29 directors were not duly elected and thus would only 1 of the 30 was properly elected. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Ralph Posted June 9, 2014 at 06:27 PM Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 at 06:27 PM Nothing in RONR requires persons to be present in order to be elected.The correct method of balloting would have been for members to vote for up to 30 people whom they want to be on the board, not 4 whom they don't. Having said that, if nobody raised a Point of Order at the time, I would say if the chair declared the 30 elected, they are elected.I can't comprehend why such a large board is considered desirable, mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jordan Posted June 9, 2014 at 06:36 PM Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 at 06:36 PM But if the original 29 were not nominated or seconded that makes them illegitimate under RONR, no?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted June 9, 2014 at 06:42 PM Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 at 06:42 PM While the election irregularities should not be overlooked, I think the real issue here are the apparent nomination irregularities. You say that this was a 'founding meeting of a new...association', which may be something similar to what RONR describes as a 'mass meeting' in the process of organizing a permanent society (Section 54, p. 553ff. of RONR, 11th ed.). One of the first items of business at the first or second meeting should be the adoption of bylaws, which should include the details for your board. If you haven't yet adopted bylaws, then you don't really have a board. If you have adopted bylaws, they should address how nominations for board positions are made. If so, do they include 'suggested to party officials' as an acceptable method? You don't say who it was that suggested these names. I would think, though, that since this was a 'founding meeting' the appropriate method would be to open the floor to nominations from those present, followed by an election to select the required number of board members. The caveat to all this, however, is if there is a parent organization of some kind with rules regarding nominations and elections that are binding on your association. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted June 9, 2014 at 08:02 PM Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 at 08:02 PM But if the original 29 were not nominated or seconded that makes them illegitimate under RONR, no? No. You can vote for, and elect, someone who wasn't nominated. And nominations don't require a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.