Guest George Mervosh Posted March 11, 2010 at 02:54 PM Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 at 02:54 PM Perhaps it's simply time to rescind the rule altogether via a bylaw amendment. You've nicely illustrated one of the problems societies have with attendance requirements." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kris Posted March 11, 2010 at 03:46 PM Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 at 03:46 PM Thanks for taking an interest. Bylaws attendance requirements were insisted upon by the assembly and passed almost unanimously 3 years ago. Efforts to change or modify them have failed. For now, our amendment process would take much longer than the tim" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest George Mervosh Posted March 11, 2010 at 03:48 PM Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 at 03:48 PM Why won't the Secretary produce the records in time for nominations?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle Posted March 11, 2010 at 03:56 PM Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 at 03:56 PM Why not assume EVERY candidate meets the attendance requirement and shift the burden of proof to those who think they don't. In other words, nominate Jim Smith. If Bill Jones claims that Jim Smith didn't attend 75% of the meetings, Bill Jones has" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted March 11, 2010 at 04:31 PM Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 at 04:31 PM <<And by the way, depending on the wording of the rule, you'd either have to attend 75% of the meetings (e.g. at least 9 out of 12) or 75% of the meetings (e.g. at least 45 minutes out of an hour).>> And, in the absence of the wording" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JDStackpole Posted March 11, 2010 at 04:44 PM Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 at 04:44 PM Or attend every one but sleep through them all? (Or at least 75% of each one.)" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kris Posted March 11, 2010 at 05:12 PM Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 at 05:12 PM Although he claims he's too ill to complete and supply the records, he's attended meetings since he was asked to produce. More likely, the Secretary's attendance record is probably less than 75%. There are no restrictions on consecutive terms." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kim Goldsworthy Posted March 11, 2010 at 06:17 PM Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 at 06:17 PM Kris, >>Would it be reasonable to [etc.]?<< --- Since your proposed process has NOTHING TO DO WITH ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER (and everything to do with an administrative, record-keeping task), then no page in RONR can be cited meanin" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kris Posted March 11, 2010 at 06:28 PM Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 at 06:28 PM Thank You, very much." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest George Mervosh Posted March 11, 2010 at 06:29 PM Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 at 06:29 PM You might just have to scrap nominations completely and pass out a blank piece of paper and let people vote." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John M. Posted March 11, 2010 at 06:47 PM Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 at 06:47 PM I would recommend that the assembly order someone (the secretary, the nominating committee, whoever) to produce the attendance record prior to the election meeting. At the time of the election meeting, a member may raise a Point of Order if a nominee is i" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.