How to call for a "Point of Order"

[Guest Carol Williams]

I would like to know how to challenge the validity/legality of a person being nominated from the floor (or who has been added to the ballot)that is not eligible under the CCR's to be elected to the Board of Directors. I can give more explanation if necessary. Any help/answers will be appreciated. If the rule # could be supplied that would be very helpful. TIA

[Josh Martin]

I would like to know how to challenge the validity/legality of a person being nominated from the floor (or who has been added to the ballot)that is not eligible under the CCR's to be elected to the Board of Directors. I can give more explanation if necessary. Any help/answers will be appreciated. If the rule # could be supplied that would be very helpful. TIA

After the nomination is made, rise and say, "Point of Order!" The chair will ask you to state your point. Explain why, under your organization's rules, the individual is ineligible. The chair will rule on your Point of Order, and you may appeal from the chair's ruling if necessary. A majority vote is sufficient to overturn the chair's ruling. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 240-252 for more information on a Point of Order and an Appeal.

[Carol Williams]

After the nomination is made, rise and say, "Point of Order!" The chair will ask you to state your point. Explain why, under your organization's rules, the individual is ineligible. The chair will rule on your Point of Order, and you may appeal from the chair's ruling if necessary. A majority vote is sufficient to overturn the chair's ruling. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 240-252 for more information on a Point of Order and an Appeal.

Thank you.

[J. J.]

If the bylaws unambiguously state that the person nominated is not eligible for office, an appeal cannot be made.

[Tim Wynn]

If the bylaws unambiguously state that the person nominated is not eligible for office, an appeal cannot be made.

... unless the chair rules in opposition to the unambiguously stated bylaw.

[J. J.]

... unless the chair rules in opposition to the unambiguously stated bylaw.

Well, I think that is the key.

Assume the bylaws say "Only persons that have been members of the society for at least the five consecutive years prior to the election shall be eligible to hold office." Steve joined in March of 2010. He could not hold office, no matter what the ruling or the appeal.

[Shmuel Gerber]

... unless the chair rules in opposition to the unambiguously stated bylaw.

Excellent point. But when RONR says, "when the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed," the assumption obviously is that the chair rules in accordance with the one and only reasonable opinion.

[Tim Wynn]

Excellent point. But when RONR says, "when the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed," the assumption obviously is that the chair rules in accordance with the one and only reasonable opinion.

I think we all know that chairs don't always live up to assumptions.