Guest Quiet Storm Posted December 13, 2014 at 02:41 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2014 at 02:41 PM Our organization is having an upcoming election. Though our bylaws state if you are a candidate for an office you may not be on the Election Committee, two potential candidates took it upon themselves to do so. As I (and others) am/are a candidate(s) for a seat(s) on the Board, would there be any "appearance" of conflict if I was one of those who challenge this election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted December 13, 2014 at 02:45 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2014 at 02:45 PM No. If rules are being violated, it doesn't really matter who points that out. But... raising a point of order has to be done in a meeting. Does it matter what the "Election Committee" (RONR doesn't define such a thing - do your bylaws?) can do before the next meeting? And besides, a "conflict" is only what your bylaws define as a conflict -- RONR doesn't specify any "conflicts", except on p. 407, line 21ff., and I doubt that that applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted December 13, 2014 at 02:48 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2014 at 02:48 PM . . . would there be any "appearance" of conflict if I was one of those who challenge this election? Even if there was, it wouldn't matter. But, from a purely political point of view, it might better if you could find someone else to raise the point of order. You might want to first determine who is considered to be a "candidate" (RONR doesn't use that term). Does it mean that if you're on the Election Committee you can't be nominated? Can't be elected? Are you concerned that a "candidate" will be on the committee or that someone on the committee might be elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted December 13, 2014 at 02:57 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2014 at 02:57 PM "candidate" (RONR doesn't use that term) On a technical matter, "candidate" is used in several places in RONR (see p. 677 Index). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted December 13, 2014 at 03:16 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2014 at 03:16 PM On a technical matter, "candidate" is used in several places in RONR (see p. 677 Index). 33 times to be super technical, and Mr. Mt. is now obliged to find them all before posting again. No using the CD either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted December 13, 2014 at 03:31 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2014 at 03:31 PM 33 times to be super technical, and Mr. Mt. is now obliged to find them all before posting again. No using the CD either. Mr. Mt tells me he doesn't have the CD so he probably won't be posting any time soon. He also tells me I should have said that RONR doesn't define the term, not that it doesn't use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 13, 2014 at 07:11 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2014 at 07:11 PM Our organization is having an upcoming election. Though our bylaws state if you are a candidate for an office you may not be on the Election Committee, two potential candidates took it upon themselves to do so. As I (and others) am/are a candidate(s) for a seat(s) on the Board, would there be any "appearance" of conflict if I was one of those who challenge this election? Regarding any concerns about "conflict of interest," see FAQ #9. I concur with Edgar, however, that it may be prudent to have someone who is not a candidate raise the Point of Order, if possible. It's not entirely clear to me, however, that there is any violation of the rules yet. You say that your bylaws provide that you cannot serve on the Election Committee if you are a candidate for office, and you then say that two potential candidates are serving on the committee. Unless and until these members actually become candidates, I'm not sure that there is anything to challenge. A Point of Order is used to point out a violation of the rules, not to point out a violation which may or may not exist at some time in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.