Point of Order

[Guest Anonymous]

I am currently part of an organization. Recently, a president was elected, but there was a motion to reconsider the election after complaints were launched about bias and sexist comments pertaining to certain candidates. The motion passed, nullifying the election. After the fact, the executive board was unable to meet quorum and moved into a recess due to COVID-19. The second election had not been conducted yet. After holding a second election a different candidate had been chosen, and as a result protests arose. As a result, the candidate elected in the second election resigned. The incoming executive board felt the rules were not followed and therefore the motion to reconsider should never have happened, so as soon as the new executive board begins their term, they plan to call a point of order. The motion to reconsider the election was in violation of Robert's Rules, but I have some questions: No one called a point of order during the initial violation (and this would be on the assumption that the breach in parlipro was not a violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary procedure), would it be too late to call one? Should this be considered a breach of a fundamental principle, therefore the point of order could still be entertained? Also can you appeal a point of order? Or do a motion to reconsider a point of order? And lastly, once the incoming executive board is sworn in, it starts a new term and the previous term is considered business from the previous year. Should a point of order be called on business from the previous year?

[Guest Anonymous]

Any quotes from Robert's Rules would be extremely helpful!

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Anonymous said:

No one called a point of order during the initial violation (and this would be on the assumption that the breach in parlipro was not a violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary procedure), would it be too late to call one? Should this be considered a breach of a fundamental principle, therefore the point of order could still be entertained?

This is a continuing breach, and it is therefore not too late to raise a Point of Order. It is not a violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, but it is a continuing breach for a different reason. Since an election may not be reconsidered, the new election was a main motion which conflicts with a main motion previously adopted and still in force (the previous election).

"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:

...

b) 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," (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 251)

The latter part of this citation is not applicable here since an election cannot be rescinded or amended by any vote.

"The motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted are not in order under the following circumstances:

...

c) When a resignation has been acted upon, or a person has been elected to or expelled from membership or office, and the person was present or has been officially notified of the action. (The only way to reverse an expulsion is to follow whatever procedure is prescribed by the bylaws for admission or reinstatement. For the case of an election, see pp. 653–54 regarding removal of a person from office.)" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 308)

"Otherwise, an election may be contested only by raising a point of order. The general rule is that such a point of order must be timely, as described on page 250, line 30 to page 251, line 2. If an election is disputed on the ground that a quorum was not present, the provisions on page 349, lines 21–28, apply. Other exceptions to the general timeliness requirement are those that come within the five categories listed on page 251, lines 9–23, in which cases a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected. For example:

...

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." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 445)

1 hour ago, Guest Anonymous said:

Also can you appeal a point of order? Or do a motion to reconsider a point of order?

When a Point of Order is raised, the chairman would rule on the Point of Order, and the chairman's ruling may be appealed from. Of course, if the chairman's ruling is correct, his ruling should be upheld on appeal.

1 hour ago, Guest Anonymous said:

And lastly, once the incoming executive board is sworn in, it starts a new term and the previous term is considered business from the previous year. Should a point of order be called on business from the previous year?

When a continuing breach is involved, a Point of Order may be raised at any time during the continuance of the breach. In this case, the breach would continue for the entire term of the properly elected President, which I understand is ongoing. The fact that this is "business from the previous year" is irrelevant.

In addition to all of the above, I would add that a Point of Order regarding the election may only be raised at a meeting of the body which elected the President, unless the organization's rules have specifically authorized another body to make such decisions.

"Because the voting body itself is the ultimate judge of election disputes, only that body has the authority to resolve them in the absence of a bylaw or special rule of order that specifically grants another body that authority. Thus, for example, when an election has been conducted at a membership meeting or in a convention of delegates, an executive board, even one that is given full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the body that conducted the election, may not entertain a point of order challenging, or direct a recount concerning, the announced election result. While an election dispute is immediately pending before the voting body, however, it may vote to refer the dispute to a committee or board to which it delegates power to resolve the dispute." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 446)

Edited April 30, 2020 at 04:12 PM by Josh Martin

[Anonymous]

46 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

In addition to all of the above, I would add that a Point of Order regarding the election may only be raised at a meeting of the body which elected the President, unless the organization's rules have specifically authorized another body to make such decisions.

"Because the voting body itself is the ultimate judge of election disputes, only that body has the authority to resolve them in the absence of a bylaw or special rule of order that specifically grants another body that authority. Thus, for example, when an election has been conducted at a membership meeting or in a convention of delegates, an executive board, even one that is given full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the body that conducted the election, may not entertain a point of order challenging, or direct a recount concerning, the announced election result. While an election dispute is immediately pending before the voting body, however, it may vote to refer the dispute to a committee or board to which it delegates power to resolve the dispute." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 446)

We are currently in recess, but if I am understanding you correctly, raising a point of order regarding the motion to reconsider cannot be raised unless the original body that was involved with the first election was present? Also, in a sense I assume that the complaints launched were considered an informal point of order, though I recognize the breach. If the point of order were to have been called during the next meeting formally, what would have been the proper way to respond to the point of order regarding the election dispute (if let's say, the point of order is well taken by the presiding officer; or is this point of order supposed to be voted on?). I am new to parliamentary procedure, and I am really grateful for your input.

 

[Rob Elsman]

Because of the use of the "agentless" verb in the passive voice, I am uncertain which assembly is doing what. What assembly held the very first election? At the time the motion to Reconsider was made, had the winner of that election 1) accepted the election; or, 2) consented to his election beforehand; or, 3) been notified and not responded negatively? Was the maker of the motion to Reconsider a member who had voted for the candidate who won?

Furthermore, it is not clear to me who plans to raise a Point of Order. The Executive Board has no right to raise one; only a member of the assembly in which the violation occurred can do so. Is a person who wishes to do so a member of the assembly in which the alleged violation occurred? What assembly is that?

What exactly is the nature of the violation about which a member wishes to raise a Point of Order?

Without more specificity, I am afraid I cannot make heads nor tails of the situation to give accurate assistance.

In particular, I don't know what to make of Mr. Martin's response—whether it addresses the particular situation or not.

Edited April 30, 2020 at 05:24 PM by Rob Elsman

[Atul Kapur]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

Since an election may not be reconsidered

An election, once final, cannot be reconsidered. "After an election has become final as stated in this paragraph, it is too late to reconsider (37) the vote on the election." (p. 444, lines 25-27)

The OP has not given us enough information to know whether the initial election was final.

So, Guest Anonymous, was the candidate who won the first election present when the results were announced (and did not decline) or, if absent, had they consented to their candidacy prior? If either of those is true, then I agree with Mr. Martin's response. If neither were true, then the motion to Reconsider may have been in order, but we would need more details to be certain.

[Josh Martin]

28 minutes ago, Ivory Stephenson said:

We are currently in recess, but if I am understanding you correctly, raising a point of order regarding the motion to reconsider cannot be raised unless the original body that was involved with the first election was present?

Yes. If, for instance, the election was conducted by the general membership, the Point of Order may only be raised at a meeting of the general membership.

28 minutes ago, Ivory Stephenson said:

Also, in a sense I assume that the complaints launched were considered an informal point of order, though I recognize the breach.

There is no such thing as an "informal" Point of Order in parliamentary law, so I don't think it matters much whether these complaints are considered one or not.

28 minutes ago, Ivory Stephenson said:

If the point of order were to have been called during the next meeting formally, what would have been the proper way to respond to the point of order regarding the election dispute (if let's say, the point of order is well taken by the presiding officer; or is this point of order supposed to be voted on?).

If the Point of Order is raised during a meeting of the body which held the election, the chairman should rule on the Point of Order (either well taken or not well taken), and explain his reasoning for his ruling. In my opinion, the Point of Order should be ruled well taken, for the reasons I have explained above. A member may Appeal from the chair's decision if he wishes to do so. If the appeal is seconded, the decision is placed in the hands of the assembly, and is subject to debate. When it comes time to a vote, the chair states the question as "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" A majority vote in the negative is needed to overturn the chair's ruling.

If the Point of Order is raised during a meeting of some other body (say, the election was conducted by the general membership and the Point of Order is raised at a meeting of the board), the chair should rule the point not well taken on the grounds that the assembly which is presently meeting lacks the power to decide this question, but should inform the member that he may raise the Point of Order at a meeting of the proper assembly.

Mr. Elsman and Mr. Kapur raise a fair point that there are circumstances in which the motion to Reconsider may have been in order. My assumption was that the candidate was present at the time of his election (and did not immediately decline).

Edited April 30, 2020 at 05:36 PM by Josh Martin

[Anonymous]

1 minute ago, Rob Elsman said:

Because of the use of the "agentless" verb in the passive voice, I am uncertain which assembly is doing what. What assembly held the very first election? At the time the motion to Reconsider was made, had the winner of that election 1) accepted the election; or, 2) consented to his election beforehand; or, 3) been notified and not responded negatively? Was the maker of the motion to Reconsider a member who had voted for the candidate who won?

Furthermore, it is not clear to me who plans to raise a Point of Order. The Executive Board has no right to raise one; only a member of the assembly in which the violation occurred can do so. Is a person who wishes to do so a member of the assembly in which the alleged violation occurred? What assembly is that?

What exactly is the nature of the violation about which a member wishes to raise a Point of Order?

Without more specificity, I am afraid I cannot make heads nor tails of the situation to give accurate assistance.

In particular, I don't know what to make of Mr. Martin's response—whether it addresses the particular situation or not.

The election was held during a general student body meeting, this is the assembly in which the first election occurred. The second election took place under a recess of the second assembly I refer to, the executive board.. The winner of the initial election had been notified and had accepted. I will be honest, I am not sure if the person who made the motion to reconsider was someone who voted for the elected candidate, but for the sake of argument let's assume so (though I will  explore this). There are currently two executive boards, in a sense: one is the current executive board, who is currently acting as the general body during the recess. They do not plan to raise the point of order, they are also the group that conducted the second election. The second group who I am referring to, is the incoming executive board, who wants to raise a point of order against the motion to reconsider, which led to the second election. In regards to the second part of your question, it is complicated because a member of the general body (who is also an incoming executive member) wants to raise the point of order, however, we are currently in recess, and so there will be no general body meetings until the next semester (Fall 2020). I assume this would mean that the point of order would have to be raised by a non executive board member, and would have to take place when the general body is restored. I am not sure how to refer to the nature of the violation question, but I will do my best to explain. The violation that is in question occurred a week after the elections, after multiple complaints had been received about alleged bias and sexist comments. It was believed that these two factors in conjunction had skewed the election. As a result, a general body member made a motion to reconsider, and the motion was seconded (this is supposed to be a vote, but it was interpreted that the vote would be the election itself; if the same candidate was elected, this would mean the motion was rejected). After a recess was called, a general body member realized that parlipro was breached, because you cannot make a motion to reconsider an election, so the general body member wanted to raise a point of order to the motion of reconsideration that had been made. I hope this gives you more to work with.

[Anonymous]

7 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Mr. Elsman and Mr. Kapur raise a fair point that there are circumstances in which the motion to Reconsider may have been in order. My assumption was that the candidate was present at the time of his election (and did not immediately decline).

Hello,

Okay, so yes, the candidate who was elected initially did not decline. And also, going off of our hypothetical, if the point of order was well taken, that would mean that everything that occurred after the election (in regards to the second election and whatnot) would be considered voided, right?

[Anonymous]

22 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

An election, once final, cannot be reconsidered. "After an election has become final as stated in this paragraph, it is too late to reconsider (37) the vote on the election." (p. 444, lines 25-27)

The OP has not given us enough information to know whether the initial election was final.

So, Guest Anonymous, was the candidate who won the first election present when the results were announced (and did not decline) or, if absent, had they consented to their candidacy prior? If either of those is true, then I agree with Mr. Martin's response. If neither were true, then the motion to Reconsider may have been in order, but we would need more details to be certain.

So, yes, the candidate did not decline the results, and they had consented to candidacy prior.

[Anonymous]

15 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

If the Point of Order is raised during a meeting of the body which held the election, the chairman should rule on the Point of Order (either well taken or not well taken), and explain his reasoning for his ruling. In my opinion, the Point of Order should be ruled well taken, for the reasons I have explained above. A member may Appeal from the chair's decision if he wishes to do so. If the appeal is seconded, the decision is placed in the hands of the assembly, and is subject to debate. When it comes time to a vote, the chair states the question as "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" A majority vote in the negative is needed to overturn the chair's ruling.

 

Oh also, sorry talking about parliamentary procedure always leads to more and more questions, but I may have misspoken in my previous reply, so I think you answered my question on how to handle a point of order which is great.

I think my lack of eloquent writing has left me slightly confused.

I'm going to rewind a bit, to right after the first election; I need some clarity on how to properly dispute an election. So let's say I was a general body member and I wanted to call point of order on the election because of comments made (so I am claiming the election is unfair). This would have occurred the week after the initial election, before the motion to reconsider was made. Let's say the chairman rules on it, and the point is ruled to be well taken (we will also assume that no one appeals this decision). What would happen next? Would that effectively void the first election? And can that point of order be entertained even after the initial candidate has accepted?

[Josh Martin]

27 minutes ago, Ivory Stephenson said:

I will be honest, I am not sure if the person who made the motion to reconsider was someone who voted for the elected candidate, but for the sake of argument let's assume so (though I will  explore this).

It doesn't matter at this point. Even if it were moved by someone who did not vote on the prevailing side, that would not be a continuing breach. (And it seems like the motion to Reconsider is null and void anyway.)

27 minutes ago, Ivory Stephenson said:

The second group who I am referring to, is the incoming executive board, who wants to raise a point of order against the motion to reconsider, which led to the second election.

I don't think it matters now since the second election was invalid for other reasons, but I would note that even if the first election had been properly reconsidered, the vote after reconsideration would be conducted by the same body as the first election. The motion to Reconsider (even in the limited circumstances it is in order for an election) can also only be made during a meeting of the body which conducted the first election.

27 minutes ago, Ivory Stephenson said:

I assume this would mean that the point of order would have to be raised by a non executive board member, and would have to take place when the general body is restored.

Well, it doesn't necessarily have to be a non-executive board member. It just has to be raised by a member of the general body. It may well be that some people are members of both bodies.

It is correct that it would have to wait until the general body meets.

27 minutes ago, Ivory Stephenson said:

I am not sure how to refer to the nature of the violation question, but I will do my best to explain. The violation that is in question occurred a week after the elections, after multiple complaints had been received about alleged bias and sexist comments. It was believed that these two factors in conjunction had skewed the election. As a result, a general body member made a motion to reconsider, and the motion was seconded (this is supposed to be a vote, but it was interpreted that the vote would be the election itself; if the same candidate was elected, this would mean the motion was rejected). After a recess was called, a general body member realized that parlipro was breached, because you cannot make a motion to reconsider an election, so the general body member wanted to raise a point of order to the motion of reconsideration that had been made. I hope this gives you more to work with.

 

19 minutes ago, Ivory Stephenson said:

So, yes, the candidate did not decline the results, and they had consented to candidacy prior.

Based on these additional facts, it seems to me that my original advice remains correct. The motion to Reconsider is null and void, however, this decision may only be made at a meeting of the general body.

For future reference, the fact that it is believed "that these two factors in conjunction had skewed the election" has no relevance regarding the validity or finality of the election. If the assembly wished to take action regarding "alleged bias and sexist comments," the proper course of action would be formal disciplinary procedures, not to reconsider the election or to raise a Point of Order regarding the election.

21 minutes ago, Ivory Stephenson said:

Okay, so yes, the candidate who was elected initially did not decline. And also, going off of our hypothetical, if the point of order was well taken, that would mean that everything that occurred after the election (in regards to the second election and whatnot) would be considered voided, right?

I don't quite understand what you mean by "everything that occurred." Certainly the motion to Reconsider and the second election are null and void. I don't know what other things you're asking about.

9 minutes ago, Ivory Stephenson said:

m going to rewind a bit, to right after the first election; I need some clarity on how to properly dispute an election. So let's say I was a general body member and I wanted to call point of order on the election because of comments made (so I am claiming the election is unfair). This would have occurred the week after the initial election, before the motion to reconsider was made. Let's say the chairman rules on it, and the point is ruled to be well taken (we will also assume that no one appeals this decision). What would happen next?

There is no basis in RONR to invalidate an election, especially one which has already been completed, because of "comments made" or based on a general claim that the election was "unfair." So if you raise a Point of Order (during a meeting of the general body) that the election was null and void on that basis, the chairman should rule the vote not well taken, and this ruling should be sustained if an appeal is taken. (Unless, of course, there is something in your organization's rules providing otherwise.) If the assembly wishes to take action regarding these comments, the proper course of action is disciplinary procedures. Check your bylaws or see Ch. XX of RONR if your bylaws are silent on this matter.

Nonetheless, if the chairman (incorrectly, in my view) rules the election null and void on these grounds, and this ruling is not appealed (or is sustained on appeal), the next course of action would be for a new election to be held by the general body.

9 minutes ago, Ivory Stephenson said:

Would that effectively void the first election?

Yes, although in my opinion, this is not the correct decision.

9 minutes ago, Ivory Stephenson said:

And can that point of order be entertained even after the initial candidate has accepted?

No. (And for that matter, the Point of Order in question should be ruled not well taken even if it is raised before the candidate accepted.)

Edited April 30, 2020 at 06:10 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

So the first election was final immediately after the results were announced and the chair declared the candidate elected as president. So the motion to Reconsider was improper from the start  and should have been ruled out of order for that reason alone. The person who was elected at the first election is your president.

That means that the second election is null and void. It does not matter when it done (the same day as the first election or a week later). It also does not matter who held the second election (the general student body meeting or the executive board).

However, there may be a solution, depending on the circumstances. If it was the executive board that held the second election, then that is where the error was made and that is where the Point of Order should be raised.

In that case: At a meeting of the executive board, a member (of the board) raises a point of order that the second election was improper and constitutes a continuing breach because it was in conflict with a previous valid election for the same term (that is, it's in conflict with the first election). The chair of the board meeting will rule. If you disagree with the ruling, then Appeal it.

[Josh Martin]

4 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

However, there may be a solution, depending on the circumstances. If it was the executive board that held the second election, then that is where the error was made and that is where the Point of Order should be raised.

Hm, that's a good point. Perhaps the board's error in conducting the second election will help to more swiftly resolve this matter.

It's not entirely clear, however, whether the motion to Reconsider was made at a meeting of the general body or at a meeting of the executive board.

Edited April 30, 2020 at 06:13 PM by Josh Martin

[Anonymous]

2 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Hm, that's a good point. Perhaps the board's error in conducting the second election will help to more swiftly resolve this matter.

It's not entirely clear, however, whether the motion to Reconsider was made at a meeting of the general body or at a meeting of the executive board

Okay, so at the second election, the point of order was not raised, and a different candidate was elected. In regards to the second part, the motion to reconsider was made at the general body meeting, the second election was held by the executive board. This was due to a recess called by the executive board for failing to reach quorum (which was the result of COVID-19). So on that basis, if the error is made in the second election which was conducted by the executive board, can the new executive board (once sworn in to the new positions), still call a point of order, even though they were not involved in the election (did not have voting rights)?

[Anonymous]

26 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

However, there may be a solution, depending on the circumstances. If it was the executive board that held the second election, then that is where the error was made and that is where the Point of Order should be raised.

So this, part, is this open to interpretation then? I thought the error was when the motion to reconsider was made, but you are saying the error was made in the action taken thereafter?

[Josh Martin]

27 minutes ago, Ivory Stephenson said:

So this, part, is this open to interpretation then? I thought the error was when the motion to reconsider was made, but you are saying the error was made in the action taken thereafter?

No, the error happened when the motion to reconsider was made.

But if the board was the body that made the error, it could also be the body to fix it. So if the board made the motion to Reconsider and conducted the second election (neither of which it should have done, not only because of the reasons noted above but also because the board can't change an election conducted by the membership), then a Point of Order regarding this issue may be raised at a meeting of the board. Apparently, however, that's not what happened. The board could still raise a Point of Order regarding the second election (although that may be a moot point if that candidate has already resigned), but a Point of Order regarding the motion to Reconsider will have to be made at a meeting of the membership.

40 minutes ago, Ivory Stephenson said:

Okay, so at the second election, the point of order was not raised, and a different candidate was elected. In regards to the second part, the motion to reconsider was made at the general body meeting, the second election was held by the executive board. This was due to a recess called by the executive board for failing to reach quorum (which was the result of COVID-19). So on that basis, if the error is made in the second election which was conducted by the executive board, can the new executive board (once sworn in to the new positions), still call a point of order, even though they were not involved in the election (did not have voting rights)?

They can raise a Point of Order regarding the second election. The fact that they were not members of the board at the time of the election is immaterial. It's not clear that this will accomplish much, however, since the person who was elected in the second election has already resigned. A Point of Order regarding the motion to Reconsider may only be raised at a meeting of the membership.

I'm also very, very confused about why the general body did not proceed to conduct the second election immediately after adopting the motion to reconsider, and as to why the executive board thought it could complete the general body's election

For future reference, only the general membership can complete its own elections and only the general membership can decide to recess a meeting of the general membership, and also, meetings of the board can only be called in accordance with your rules - they probably can't be called with zero minutes of notice. If the membership couldn't complete the election due to a lack of quorum, it would need to wait until a meeting of the membership with a quorum.

Edited April 30, 2020 at 07:05 PM by Josh Martin

[Anonymous]

9 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I'm also very, very confused about why the general body did not proceed to conduct the second election immediately after adopting the motion to reconsider, and as to why the executive board thought it could complete the general body's election

So the timeline when all of this occurred was unfortunate. This happened the week before Spring break, and then once Spring Break hit, COVID-19 took place, and school was moved to online for the rest of the semester. So once all of that occurred, they tried to meet quorum by moving meeting online, but failed to do so, and moved into a recess. So due to this, the second election occurred when it did. That being said, the general body would have to confirm the new candidate in the fall.

[Josh Martin]

10 minutes ago, Ivory Stephenson said:

So the timeline when all of this occurred was unfortunate. This happened the week before Spring break, and then once Spring Break hit, COVID-19 took place, and school was moved to online for the rest of the semester. So once all of that occurred, they tried to meet quorum by moving meeting online, but failed to do so, and moved into a recess. So due to this, the second election occurred when it did. That being said, the general body would have to confirm the new candidate in the fall.

Yeah, I went back and read that part.

For future reference, only the general membership can complete its own elections and only the general membership can decide to recess a meeting of the general membership, and also, meetings of the board can only be called in accordance with your rules - they probably can't be called with zero minutes of notice. If the membership couldn't complete the election due to a lack of quorum, it would need to wait until a meeting of the membership with a quorum. It should also be noted that you can't meet online unless authorized to do so by your bylaws.

Under other circumstances, it might be possible (depending on what the bylaws say) for the board to fill the vacancy temporarily until the election could be completed, but in this case, the Vice President would simply serve as President until the election could be completed. In any event, the board can't complete the election and have the general body confirm the candidate in the fall.

So to sum up, this seems to be where you stand now:

• The election was (improperly) reconsidered, but this can only be fixed by the membership. As a result, the first election is no longer effective until this is fixed.
• A second election was (improperly) conducted by the board. This part (but not reconsideration) could be fixed by the board, but it's probably a moot point since this person resigned anyway.
• It may be some time before it is possible for the general body to meet.

So it seems to me that the Vice President will serve as President until the general body can fix this, at which time the originally elected President will resume his position as President.

Edited April 30, 2020 at 07:12 PM by Josh Martin

[Anonymous]

7 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

For future reference, only the general membership can complete its own elections and only the general membership can decide to recess a meeting of the general membership, and also, meetings of the board can only be called in accordance with your rules - they probably can't be called with zero minutes of notice. If the membership couldn't complete the election due to a lack of quorum, it would need to wait until a meeting of the membership with a quorum. It should also be noted that you can't meet online unless authorized to do so by your bylaws

Yes, so I wasn't involved in the issues with meeting quorum; I was recently appointed to parliamentarian position by the current executive board, and I'm trying to sort everything out, as tensions are high as a result of everything that has occurred between now and then. I was informed that an online form was given out to the general body, and that was used to recess. However, I do see the potential issues that arise there, so I know there will have to be some legislation put in place for what to do in the case of an emergency. But anyways, you have helped me navigate the most complicated aspects of this, which was dealing with the elections, and I thank you for that. One last question though: is it okay for executive board to complete a special election (in this case that is what's happening), and then the general body votes on that decision when it is back in session? 

[Josh Martin]

18 minutes ago, Ivory Stephenson said:

ne last question though: is it okay for executive board to complete a special election (in this case that is what's happening), and then the general body votes on that decision when it is back in session? 

No (unless your bylaws authorize the board to do so).

[Anonymous]

15 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

No (unless your bylaws authorize the board to do so).

Okay then. Thanks a bunch! Though the disputes are far from over. I may be potentially looking into another forum post in the next few days

[Atul Kapur]

There may still be a way out of this. When was the next regular meeting of the general student body scheduled? If it was scheduled more than a "quarterly interval" in time ahead (for example, if it only meets once a year), then the suspending effect of the (improper) motion to Reconsider ended when the meeting did (because it does not sound like you had set an adjourned or continuing meeting). In that case, the election was final when the meeting of the general student body ended. And we go back to being able to raise a point of order about the Executive Board's improper second election.

To answer this question we need to know what month the general student body meeting was held (Spring Break is different for different areas of the continent) and what month the next regular general student body meeting was scheduled to occur.

[Anonymous]

42 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

There may still be a way out of this. When was the next regular meeting of the general student body scheduled? If it was scheduled more than a "quarterly interval" in time ahead (for example, if it only meets once a year), then the suspending effect of the (improper) motion to Reconsider ended when the meeting did (because it does not sound like you had set an adjourned or continuing meeting). In that case, the election was final when the meeting of the general student body ended. And we go back to being able to raise a point of order about the Executive Board's improper second election.

To answer this question we need to know what month the general student body meeting was held (Spring Break is different for different areas of the continent) and what month the next regular general student body meeting was scheduled to occur.

The next meeting after the election was held in late February, I actually need to look into whether there was another meeting scheduled for the first week of March, whether a meeting happened or not I’m not sure, but I do know that an election did not occur (I can look into this if necessary). Spring break occurred the second week of March.

[Atul Kapur]

Now I'm confused again. Let me be very specific.

What month was the general student body meeting where the election occurred?

What month was the general student body meeting where the motion to Reconsider was made?

Was there another regular meeting of the general student body after the one where the motion to Reconsider was made? If so, what month was that meeting held? If not, what month was it scheduled to be held?