Guest Butch Posted November 30, 2016 at 03:50 AM Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 at 03:50 AM Once nominations are open can the presiding officer prohibit one particular person from nomination. Saying " anyone in the state can be nominated except him " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted November 30, 2016 at 04:20 AM Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 at 04:20 AM No. The chair does not have that power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted November 30, 2016 at 01:48 PM Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 at 01:48 PM What if he is not eligible to hold that position? If not, at what point would the presiding officer make such a ruling? It's crazy to think they have to wait until the guy is elected in order to rule him ineligible. (I'm not suggesting that's why this presiding officer said what he said.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted November 30, 2016 at 02:10 PM Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 at 02:10 PM 17 minutes ago, George Mervosh said: What if he is not eligible to hold that position? If not, at what point would the presiding officer make such a ruling? It's crazy to think they have to wait until the guy is elected in order to rule him ineligible. (I'm not suggesting that's why this presiding officer said what he said.) I agree. Not being eligible would be a legitimate reason for not allowing the nomination. I thought of that after I posted my comment but didn't go back and edit it because nothing in the original post indicated that to be the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted November 30, 2016 at 04:36 PM Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 at 04:36 PM 2 hours ago, George Mervosh said: What if he is not eligible to hold that position? If not, at what point would the presiding officer make such a ruling? It's crazy to think they have to wait until the guy is elected in order to rule him ineligible. (I'm not suggesting that's why this presiding officer said what he said.) Assuming the bylaws say only that "a Person X cannot hold Office Y," on what grounds would the chair refuse the nomination? Dilatory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted November 30, 2016 at 04:46 PM Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 at 04:46 PM (edited) 9 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said: Assuming the bylaws say only that "a Person X cannot hold Office Y," on what grounds would the chair refuse the nomination? Dilatory? Making up bylaw wording is hazardous. If, in the chair's opinion the bylaws say he's not eligible to hold that office, he can rule the nomination out of order. I think it's that simple. Of course his ruling can be appealed in most cases. And again, as Mr. Brown notes, that might not be the case here, we just don't know. Edited November 30, 2016 at 04:47 PM by George Mervosh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted November 30, 2016 at 05:23 PM Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 at 05:23 PM (edited) And to be able to say someone is ineligible to be nominated or elected or serve in office, the bylaws had better be transparently specific and clear. Such as "Only members of the Association may serve in office". Don't attempt to define general qualifications ("qualified", "intelligent", "hard working" or the like) or you will end up with endless arguments in specific cases. Those judgments are for the voters to consider and vote accordingly. Edited November 30, 2016 at 05:24 PM by jstackpo Add a few words Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted November 30, 2016 at 10:49 PM Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 at 10:49 PM 18 hours ago, Guest Butch said: "Anyone in the state can be nominated, except him." You know what? That sounds like an insult. It doesn't come across as an objective measure of qualifications for office, nor does it come across a a rule citation. "Anyone in the state"? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted November 30, 2016 at 11:13 PM Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 at 11:13 PM (edited) 24 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said: You know what? That sounds like an insult. It doesn't come across as an objective measure of qualifications for office, nor does it come across a a rule citation. "Anyone in the state"? Really? I agree with Mr. Goldsworthy, but, as Mr. Mervosh correctly pointed out, there is a possibility that for some reason this person does not meet the qualifications in the bylaws and that is the reason for the chair's statement. We just don't know. The chair can rule someone not qualified for office only if that person fails to meet the qualifications in the bylaws. The personal feelings of the chair should never be a factor. If a presiding officer lets his personal feelings dictate what he does, he is subject to censure, discipline or removal from office. I suspect there is something going on here that we don't know about. What about it, Guest Butch? One more question: Did this really happen? And if so, was the person's name ultimately put in nomination? Keep in mind that unless your bylaws prohibit it, this person can still be elected as a write in candidate. Edited November 30, 2016 at 11:16 PM by Richard Brown Edited last paragraph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 1, 2016 at 05:16 AM Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 at 05:16 AM It seems unlikely to me that the requirements in the bylaws for holding office would be written so as to allow anyone in the state except that one individual to be eligible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted December 3, 2016 at 07:55 PM Report Share Posted December 3, 2016 at 07:55 PM On 11/30/2016 at 8:48 AM, George Mervosh said: What if he is not eligible to hold that position? If not, at what point would the presiding officer make such a ruling? It's crazy to think they have to wait until the guy is elected in order to rule him ineligible. (I'm not suggesting that's why this presiding officer said what he said.) This ruling of the chair is not in response to a point of order, but (I think I'm forgetting, maybe) is the chair here obliged to give his reasons, and if so, do they go in the minutes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 3, 2016 at 10:40 PM Report Share Posted December 3, 2016 at 10:40 PM 2 hours ago, Guest Nancy N. said: This ruling of the chair is not in response to a point of order, but (I think I'm forgetting, maybe) is the chair here obliged to give his reasons, and if so, do they go in the minutes? Yes to both questions. I do not think the fact that the chair made the ruling on his own initiative makes any difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted December 4, 2016 at 01:05 PM Report Share Posted December 4, 2016 at 01:05 PM 17 hours ago, Guest Nancy N. said: This ruling of the chair is not in response to a point of order, but (I think I'm forgetting, maybe) is the chair here obliged to give his reasons, and if so, do they go in the minutes? 14 hours ago, Josh Martin said: Yes to both questions. I do not think the fact that the chair made the ruling on his own initiative makes any difference. Thanks; please, what would you cite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted December 4, 2016 at 05:26 PM Report Share Posted December 4, 2016 at 05:26 PM (edited) 4 hours ago, Guest Nancy N. said: Thanks; please, what would you cite? Please don't bother Josh on the weekends. Try p. 470, ll. 15-17 and p. 251, l. 28ff Edited December 4, 2016 at 05:27 PM by George Mervosh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts