Guest JDStackpole Posted March 11, 2010 at 02:12 PM Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 at 02:12 PM No, probably. Do your bylaws explicitly say that there shall be no nominations from the floor? If they do, the president acted properly. If not (more likely, in my view) the pres acted improperly. p.421, line 9." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle Posted March 11, 2010 at 02:17 PM Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 at 02:17 PM The answer depends on a proper interpretation of your bylaws and that, in terms, means reading them in their entirety, something that's beyond the scope and purpose of this forum. That said, if the board must first nominate, then the board must f" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chris H Posted March 11, 2010 at 02:28 PM Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 at 02:28 PM "What the chair should have done was ruled the motion out of order and explained his reasoning for the ruling (though that seems to be what, essentially, he did)." Although it sounds like the motion was being considered already so the r" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle Posted March 11, 2010 at 03:45 PM Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 at 03:45 PM I think that if the rule had simply been that a candidate must be nominated in order to be elected, there'd be no continuing breach. But the rule requires that one body (the board) nominates and the other body (the association) elects. I" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Joe Binkewicz Posted March 11, 2010 at 09:10 PM Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 at 09:10 PM The by-laws do not address nominations from the floor of the general membership so a nomination from the floor of the general membership is not specifically prohibited." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Joe Binkewicz Posted March 11, 2010 at 09:12 PM Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 at 09:12 PM The board of officers is a body subordinate in stature to the general membership thus subject to the actions of the general membership." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Joe Binkewicz Posted March 12, 2010 at 02:35 PM Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 at 02:35 PM The premise upon which your analogy is based is flawed. The board of officer and the general membership are not coequal branches of the organization but exist in a superior to inferior relationship within the same organization. Thus, the superior body, th" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kim Goldsworthy Posted March 12, 2010 at 02:51 PM Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 at 02:51 PM Joe B. "Comment?" The chair was still wrong. The chair suppressed a motion (viz., an election to fill an vacancy) which should have gone forward. -kg " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle Posted March 12, 2010 at 05:28 PM Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 at 05:28 PM >>the superior body, the general membership, holds absolute authority over all actions of the inferior boy<< If the bylaws give the inferior body exclusive authority over a particular action, it's inferior status is irrelevant." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John M. Posted March 12, 2010 at 07:29 PM Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 at 07:29 PM >>If the bylaws give the inferior body exclusive authority over a particular action, it's inferior status is irrelevant.<< Who says it's exclusive? The intent of the Bylaw provision may simply be for the board to act as a nominating c" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle Posted March 12, 2010 at 08:59 PM Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 at 08:59 PM >>Who says it's exclusive?<< No one; hence the "if"." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.