Order of Meeting

[Guest Tom]

2 meetings ago we had a special election to fill an 2 open position for the unexpired term.  Now in our by-laws, does list the order of the regular meetings, and it also states that for elections will be held after the reading of the minutes of the previous meeting and that the President (or Vice-President) will suspend the meeting and relinquish the chair to the Board of Trustee to conduct the election.  Well the Vice-President didn't do the election after the meeting minutes of the previous meeting, but rather conducted the meeting and held the election after New Business.   In addition he didn't relinquish the chair to the Board of Trustee, but conducted the election himself.  Now the Board members actually waived it and instructed the Vice-President to Conduct the election.  No one from the assembly raised any issue.  Now at the last meeting, 1 member raised a point of order that the election was held illegally and is null and void, because it was held after new business instead of right after the meeting minutes of the previous meeting, and that the Board of Trustees can not waive the right to conduct the election.   Now mind you These 2 open positions were filled unopposed.  So the question here is being that the election was not held in the proper order of the meeting after new business versus after the meeting minutes are read could the election be considered not valid and null and void, and also since the Board waived it to the Vice-President who was already chairing the meeting to conduct the election also be considered that the election was not valid and null and void.

[Clurichan]

48 minutes ago, Guest Tom said:

... Now at the last meeting, 1 member raised a point of order that the election was held illegally and is null and void ...

Did the chair make a ruling, or turn the question over to the assembly, or ...? 

[Joshua Katz]

Regardless, none of the things complained of (one of which I don't understand - how can a Board chair a meeting?) would impact the outcome, so there's no continuing breach, making the point of order not timely.

[Guest Tom]

The V-Pnasked the assembly and the comments was since the 2 who filled the positions were nominated and ran unopposed to let the election stand.  However there was no motion made.  The V-P stated to table the matter for research and to be brought up at the next meeting 

 

As far as the board chair.  Our by-laws state for elections that after the reading of the meeting minute, the President or Vice-President who is chairing the meeting will suspend the meeting and relinquish the chair to the board of trustees to conduct the elections.  Normally it has been the chairman of the board, but it doesn't specify that it has to be the chairman.  But in this case the board of trustees waived it to the V-P to conduct the election   

 

The point of order being raised here is that the election was not conducted after the reading of the meeting minutes but rather after new business and that the board of trustees can't waive to have the V-P conduct the election.  2 of our members are ruling the election not valid and null and void as both violated the bylaws.

 

Our bylaws does lay out the order and agenda of the meeting and where in the meeting elections are meeting elections are to be held and who conducts the elections  

 

Being that the election was not held in the proper order and agenda of the meeting (after new business versus after reading of meeting minutes) and being that it was conducted by the V-P as the Board waived to him the V-P conducted the elections. Would either of these be grounds to declare the election not valid and I'll and void 

 

 

[Kim Goldsworthy]

2 hours ago, Guest Tom said:

So the question here is being that

the election was not held in the proper order of the meeting after new business,

versus after the meeting minutes are read,

could the election be considered not valid and null and void?

[...]

since the Board waived it to the Vice-President who was already chairing the meeting to conduct the election also be considered that the election was not valid and null and void?

No, and no.

The fact that the conducting of the election was last (or first), is of no import. It isn't the positioning of an item of business in one's agenda which could invalidate the business.

The fact that the chair at the time was not the regular chair, is of no import. It isn't the person wielding the gavel which can turn an election into an improper election.

[Gary Novosielski]

28 minutes ago, Guest Tom said:

The V-Pnasked the assembly and the comments was since the 2 who filled the positions were nominated and ran unopposed to let the election stand.  However there was no motion made.  The V-P stated to table the matter for research and to be brought up at the next meeting 

 

As far as the board chair.  Our by-laws state for elections that after the reading of the meeting minute, the President or Vice-President who is chairing the meeting will suspend the meeting and relinquish the chair to the board of trustees to conduct the elections.  Normally it has been the chairman of the board, but it doesn't specify that it has to be the chairman.  But in this case the board of trustees waived it to the V-P to conduct the election   

 

The point of order being raised here is that the election was not conducted after the reading of the meeting minutes but rather after new business and that the board of trustees can't waive to have the V-P conduct the election.  2 of our members are ruling the election not valid and null and void as both violated the bylaws.

 

Our bylaws does lay out the order and agenda of the meeting and where in the meeting elections are meeting elections are to be held and who conducts the elections  

 

Being that the election was not held in the proper order and agenda of the meeting (after new business versus after reading of meeting minutes) and being that it was conducted by the V-P as the Board waived to him the V-P conducted the elections. Would either of these be grounds to declare the election not valid and I'll and void 

 

 

No, none of those would be sufficient.

[Guest Tom]

I really didn't think so.   Thank you!!!!!

[Joshua Katz]

In thinking about my response some more - of course holding the election at a different time can change the outcome, but in general, it doesn't do so in a prejudicial or systematic way.  On the other hand, if it can be proven that the presiding officer said "okay, it's time for the el...hmm, Ted's still here and Bob hasn't gotten here yet...it's time for this other thing!"  or was on the phone saying "okay, so when can you get here to vote for our favored candidate?" it seems to me there was a violation that impacted the outcome by controlling the voters.  That doesn't seem to be the case here.  (Of course, under those circumstances, I'd also think there's a case for discipline.)