Guest Rhiannon Posted January 31, 2023 at 06:29 PM Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 06:29 PM During annual elections, does a member need to be present in order to be voted into a position? In December, a member who had previously accepted the nomination, for the position of secretary, was unable to make the meeting because of her obligations with her son. One of the elders said that she was not eligible to take the position because she was not there. The position was given to a last minute nominee else. Now there is distrust and skepticism among the membership. Thanks for your help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 31, 2023 at 06:38 PM Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 06:38 PM (edited) No, it is not necessary for the person elected to be present, especially if they have stated in advance that they would serve if elected! They are to be notified, and have the opportunity to decline at that point. But if they were duly elected, positions can't just be "given" to others. The distrust and skepticism is therefore very well-founded. I will leave it to others to suggest whether this is a continuing breach of the rules. A lot depends on whether she was actually elected, or whether the clueless elder managed to convince the gullible members that they had no right to vote for her. Edited January 31, 2023 at 06:41 PM by Gary Novosielski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caryn Ann Harlos Posted January 31, 2023 at 06:59 PM Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 06:59 PM On the topic of odd bylaws, however, my state organization does require the person be present. That resulted last year in a very good person who wanted to serve being disqualified. That is why we often ask to see the bylaws. Not to be a PITA but because it can make a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rhiannon Posted January 31, 2023 at 08:19 PM Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 08:19 PM Thank you both for your speedy answers. Our particular bylaws do not mention the member must be present. We count on this elder to keep us all in line with the traditions of our club and I’m sure he did not mean intentional harm. We all took it at his word and didn’t bother with an election vote because there was only the one last minute nominee left. Would it be fair and appropriate to ask to vacate the result for the position of secretary and to hold a special election for that one position at our next meeting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rhiannon Posted January 31, 2023 at 09:03 PM Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 09:03 PM On 1/31/2023 at 1:38 PM, Gary Novosielski said: No, it is not necessary for the person elected to be present, especially if they have stated in advance that they would serve if elected! They are to be notified, and have the opportunity to decline at that point. But if they were duly elected, positions can't just be "given" to others. The distrust and skepticism is therefore very well-founded. I will leave it to others to suggest whether this is a continuing breach of the rules. A lot depends on whether she was actually elected, or whether the clueless elder managed to convince the gullible members that they had no right to vote for her. Thank you both for your speedy answers. Our particular bylaws do not mention the member must be present. We count on this elder to keep us all in line with the traditions of our club and I’m sure he did not mean intentional harm. We all took it at his word and didn’t bother with an election vote because there was only the one last minute nominee left. Would it be fair and appropriate to ask to vacate the result for the position of secretary and to hold a special election for that one position at our next meeting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted January 31, 2023 at 09:11 PM Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 09:11 PM (edited) On 1/31/2023 at 1:19 PM, Guest Rhiannon said: Our particular bylaws do not mention the member must be present. Then they don't have to be. On 1/31/2023 at 1:19 PM, Guest Rhiannon said: We count on this elder to keep us all in line with the traditions of our club and I’m sure he did not mean intentional harm. Lesson learned, I hope. Don't just take someone's word for something, no matter how much of an "elder" they may be. Find out ofr yourslef for yourself. On 1/31/2023 at 1:19 PM, Guest Rhiannon said: We all took it at his word and didn’t bother with an election vote because there was only the one last minute nominee left. NO, you still had two nominees, the original one and the new one. Reopening nominations was not a problem, but treating the new nominee as the sole nominee was. On 1/31/2023 at 1:19 PM, Guest Rhiannon said: Would it be fair and appropriate to ask to vacate the result for the position of secretary and to hold a special election for that one position at our next meeting? IMOI, yes. Even if your bylaws don't require a ballot vote when you have only one nominee, the fact is that you had two nominees. IMO, the election as held was null and void. Edited February 1, 2023 at 08:48 PM by Weldon Merritt Corrected a typo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 31, 2023 at 10:26 PM Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 10:26 PM On 1/31/2023 at 3:11 PM, Weldon Merritt said: IMO, the election as held was null and void. I tend to agree, but I also think we need additional information. Although I cannot point to a specific provision in RONR that says the election is void, I believe the fact that a legitimate and qualified candidate was improperly removed from the ballot and the fact that members were prevented from voting for him might be sufficient to render the election null and void upon a member raising a point of order. I think what happened might well constitute a continuing breach. In addition, I think a new election could be ordered pursuant to the provisions of section 46:48-50 of RONR (12th ed.). What concerns me is that we do not know if there was an actual ruling of the chair to the effect that the member must be present in order to be a candidate and that votes cast for him would not count if there had been an actual ballot vote or if the chair simply declared the other candidate elected by acclamation.. I would feel much better about my position if I knew the chair actually made a ruling disqualifying the candidate and declaring that the sole remaining candidate is elected by acclamation without permitting a ballot vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caryn Ann Harlos Posted January 31, 2023 at 10:44 PM Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 10:44 PM If no point of order raised at the time, why a continuing breach? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 31, 2023 at 11:04 PM Report Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 11:04 PM On 1/31/2023 at 2:19 PM, Guest Rhiannon said: Would it be fair and appropriate to ask to vacate the result for the position of secretary and to hold a special election for that one position at our next meeting? Do the bylaws require a ballot vote? If so, then yes, the election is null and void. If not, it seems to me the election is valid and it is too late to raise a Point of Order at this time. But perhaps the Secretary would be willing to voluntarily resign, in which event an election could be held to fill the vacancy. On 1/31/2023 at 3:11 PM, Weldon Merritt said: IMOI, yes. Even if your bylaws don't require a ballot vote when you have only one nominee, the fact is that you had two nominees. IMO, the election as held was null and void. It is not yet clear that the bylaws require a ballot vote at all. If they do not, I don't see anything that constitutes a continuing breach. If the bylaws require a ballot vote, then I agree that there is a continuing breach. On 1/31/2023 at 4:26 PM, Richard Brown said: I tend to agree, but I also think we need additional information. Although I cannot point to a specific provision in RONR that says the election is void, I believe the fact that a legitimate and qualified candidate was improperly removed from the ballot and the fact that members were prevented from voting for him might be sufficient to render the election null and void upon a member raising a point of order. I think what happened might well constitute a continuing breach. In addition, I think a new election could be ordered pursuant to the provisions of section 46:48-50 of RONR (12th ed.). What concerns me is that we do not know if there was an actual ruling of the chair to the effect that the member must be present in order to be a candidate and that votes cast for him would not count if there had been an actual ballot vote or if the chair simply declared the other candidate elected by acclamation.. I would feel much better about my position if I knew the chair actually made a ruling disqualifying the candidate and declaring that the sole remaining candidate is elected by acclamation without permitting a ballot vote. I'm not persuaded that the facts presented here constitute preventing a member from voting. Based upon the facts presented, it seems to me there is a continuing breach only if the bylaws require a ballot vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted February 1, 2023 at 12:53 AM Report Share Posted February 1, 2023 at 12:53 AM On 1/31/2023 at 4:04 PM, Josh Martin said: I'm not persuaded that the facts presented here constitute preventing a member from voting. Based upon the facts presented, it seems to me there is a continuing breach only if the bylaws require a ballot vote. You very well may be right. But I agree with Mr. Brown that we really need more information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted February 1, 2023 at 01:21 AM Report Share Posted February 1, 2023 at 01:21 AM On 1/31/2023 at 5:04 PM, Josh Martin said: I'm not persuaded that the facts presented here constitute preventing a member from voting. Based upon the facts presented, it seems to me there is a continuing breach only if the bylaws require a ballot vote. On 1/31/2023 at 6:53 PM, Weldon Merritt said: You very well may be right. But I agree with Mr. Brown that we really need more information. As I review the discussion, I am now inclined to agree with Mr. Martin that there is a continuing breach only if the bylaws require a ballot vote. Although we do need more information, I think the other alleged errors, such as declaring the candidate ineligible for office, would have required a timely point of order. Therefore, i am now of the opinion that the election stands unless the bylaws require a ballot vote. I strongly suspect that the members "slept on their rights" and did not properly object to the actions of the chair. Most breaches of the rules of order require a timely objection in order to be rectified. This is perhaps a perfect example of "You snooze, you lose". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 1, 2023 at 08:40 PM Report Share Posted February 1, 2023 at 08:40 PM On 1/31/2023 at 4:11 PM, Weldon Merritt said: Find out ofr yourslef. Truer words were never spoken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted February 1, 2023 at 08:47 PM Report Share Posted February 1, 2023 at 08:47 PM On 1/31/2023 at 2:11 PM, Weldon Merritt said: Find out ofr yourslef. On 2/1/2023 at 1:40 PM, Gary Novosielski said: Truer words were never spoken. Oops! That's quite a typo. Mea culpa! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 3, 2023 at 12:58 AM Report Share Posted February 3, 2023 at 12:58 AM On 2/1/2023 at 3:47 PM, Weldon Merritt said: Oops! That's quite a typo. Mea culpa! Not atall. I enjoyed it. I've been that drunk myself, in my youth. 🤪 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 3, 2023 at 04:28 PM Report Share Posted February 3, 2023 at 04:28 PM On 1/31/2023 at 5:44 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said: If no point of order raised at the time, why a continuing breach? I have the same question since no one answered yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts