Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Election Held Late


D_K
 Share

Recommended Posts

The bylaws of the organization provide that officers serve a term of "two years or until their successors have been elected."  The bylaws further provide that elections are held at an organizational meeting that "shall be held in January of each odd numbered year."  All meetings are held at the call of the president.  The president failed to call the meeting in January and scheduled it for a date in February.  A few members of the group are grousing about the fact that the bylaws say the elections "shall" be held in January.  They have argued that "shall" means "must" and is mandatory, and thus elections cannot be held in any other month and the election in February will be invalid.  To me this in an absurd result that is to be avoided under the principles of interpretation (RONR pg. 570-71).  Is there anything else in RONR that I can point to that will support my argument that an election held in February is valid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Who's Coming to Dinner

You are a way off from having to make any argument at all. "Grousing" doesn't count for anything in the parliamentary sense. These members will have to raise a point of order at a meeting before the issue is addressed. Then, you may find yourself making a case if the point is appealed one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, D_K said:

Thank you. Is there any page in RONR I can cite to for support of that argument? I'd like to be prepared.

I'm pretty sure there aren't any, except for the principles of interpretation on p. 588 - 591, which essentially say, be stupid as infrequently as possible for human beings:  for example, when your bylaws say conduct elections in January and, woops, it's February, you don't need to explode the galaxy with your Death Star, you don't even have to dissolve your organization or even plunge it into paralysis until next January when you can maybe conduct your elections in the right month, just conduct them as soon as possible, as perhaps Richard Brown would have advised you had he not been plunged into the depths of despair in contemplation of your existential constitutional crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do it as soon as possible, and if you want to make a particular point about how displeased you are that the rule wasn't followed, you move to censure the person responsible.  Or else you just scowl at him until he feels bad.

Waiting a year or, in your case, two years is just nonsensical, absurd, and not in the least bit unmeaningless, and they should be embarrassed even to suggest it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

Wait, you understood the other Gary's post more than this? ;)

6 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Sure. It's just a question of getting used to them. :)

 

What's in a name?  That which we call arroz
By any other name would taste like rice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...