Guest Randy Guest Posted January 27, 2015 at 11:01 PM Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 at 11:01 PM A trustee position was wrongfully put up for nomination before the term was up for reelection. Somehow this was not caught by anyone on the board. A vote was taken and a another person received more votes then the person who currently holds the position. However there is still one year remaining on this guys term. How should this be handled accordingly. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 27, 2015 at 11:14 PM Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 at 11:14 PM Disregard the second, invalid election, grin sheepishly, and soldier on (RONR, 11th Ed, p. 445, second bullet; p. 251 ( b )). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 27, 2015 at 11:40 PM Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 at 11:40 PM Yep, I agree with the esteemed Mr. Tesser, who is probably disappointed that the anticipated excitement of a blizzard turned out to be pretty much an ordinary snow job. I guess he's on line because he's not having to shovel show. He was, however, uncharacteristically brief, saying in one sentence what it is taking me several paragraphs to say. Since you probably don't have a copy of RONR yet to look up the citations that Mr. Tesser gave you (but I'm sure that by tomorrow you will have gone out and bought one or ordered one), here is what the two citations he gave you say: From page 445: "If there was a previously valid election for the same term, the subsequent election of another is the adoption of a main motion conflicting with one still in force." That means that, since you had previously elected someone to that term, the second election conflicts with the bylaws and is null and void. It is a "continuing breach" that can be raised at any time, whereas most breaches of order must be raised at the time of the breach. The citation on page 251 says, in part: "The only exceptions to the rule that a point of order must be made at the time of the breach arise in connection with breaches that are of a continuing nature, in which case a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach. Instances of this kind occur when: a) a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or constitution) of the organization or assembly,* a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with a main motion previously adopted and still in force, unless the subsequently adopted motion was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion," In your case, the "new" election conflicts with the prior election for which the term has not yet expired. Also, since the bylaws say that the term of that official had not yet expired, the election of someone else to the same term (or part of it) conflicts with your bylaws. This is the book you need: http://www.robertsrules.com/book.html A copy of RONR in Brief, which is an easy read and gives you most information that you need for successful meetings, would also be good to have. You can read it in one sitting. Maybe a bit of a long sitting, but still in one sitting. http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted January 28, 2015 at 02:17 AM Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 at 02:17 AM . . . the anticipated excitement of a blizzard turned out to be pretty much an ordinary snow job. I suspect our friends in Massachusetts would take issue with your characterization of this storm. Three feet of snow, gale-force winds, and coastal flooding is nothing to sneeze at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 28, 2015 at 02:23 AM Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 at 02:23 AM I suspect our friends in Massachusetts would take issue with your characterization of this storm. Three feet of snow, gale-force winds, and coastal flooding is nothing to sneeze at.Oh, I agree. I was referring specifically to Brooklyn. Gary had already told me, as I had seen on the news, that it was a bit of a dud. Same for JJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted January 28, 2015 at 05:27 AM Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 at 05:27 AM A trustee position was wrongfully put up for nomination before the term was up for reelection. Somehow this was not caught by anyone on the board. And why did the trustee not realize this? This suggests to me that they may have been a reason why the other candidate in this 'election' won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Coronite Posted January 28, 2015 at 11:50 AM Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 at 11:50 AM I suspect our friends in Massachusetts would take issue with your characterization of this storm. Three feet of snow, gale-force winds, and coastal flooding is nothing to sneeze at.Amen to that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.