Elections and By-Laws

[Guest Thomas]

At a General Body meeting a motion was made and passed to change the date of the next General Body meeting. As fate would have it, this meeting was to be the Executive Board Elections. After the motion was made and approved, it was discovered that the date that was passed via the motion was in violation of the By-Laws (ie it was a Holiday). During a subsequent Executive Board meeting (before the Election Meeting but after the General Meeting during which the motion was passed), the Board reverted the General Meeting back to it's original date and notified the General Body via public notice and email blast as per the By-Laws. The meeting was held, the election took place and the Elections Committee validated the results of the election. Now, a the minority who lost the election (who were in attendance at the Election and raised no issue about the validity of the meeting at that time) are claiming that the elections were illegal by virtue of the date of the meeting not being held on the date that was moved and passed. Since the motion to change the date was in violation of the By-Laws, the Executive Board maintains that the General Meeting was valid, and thus, so were the elections. Who is correct?

[Chris Harrison]

At a General Body meeting a motion was made and passed to change the date of the next General Body meeting. As fate would have it, this meeting was to be the Executive Board Elections. After the motion was made and approved, it was discovered that the date that was passed via the motion was in violation of the By-Laws (ie it was a Holiday). During a subsequent Executive Board meeting (before the Election Meeting but after the General Meeting during which the motion was passed), the Board reverted the General Meeting back to it's original date and notified the General Body via public notice and email blast as per the By-Laws. The meeting was held, the election took place and the Elections Committee validated the results of the election. Now, a the minority who lost the election (who were in attendance at the Election and raised no issue about the validity of the meeting at that time) are claiming that the elections were illegal by virtue of the date of the meeting not being held on the date that was moved and passed. Since the motion to change the date was in violation of the By-Laws, the Executive Board maintains that the General Meeting was valid, and thus, so were the elections. Who is correct?

Do your bylaws grant the General Body and/or Board the authority to reschedule General Body meetings?

[hmtcastle]

Who is correct?

If the motion changing the date of the annual ("election") meeting violated a non-suspendable rule in the bylaws, it's null and void (i.e. the date was never changed).

What the board did, proper or not, is irrelevant (though it seems to me they did the right thing).

[Guest Thomas]

Do your bylaws grant the General Body and/or Board the authority to reschedule General Body meetings?

Section 1 – Monthly Meeting

A. The regular monthly meeting will be held on the first Thursday of every month.

B. If the first Thursday of the month is a holiday, the regular monthly meeting will be held on the Thursday thereafter, which is not a holiday.

C. If because of inclement weather, the meeting cannot be held on the first Thursday of the month, the meeting will be held on the following Thursday.

D. If because of reason beyond human control, the meeting cannot be held on the first Thursday of the month, the meeting will be held on the following Thursday.

E. The President or Executive Board may call special meetings of the general body at any time.

F. Whenever a meeting date is changed from the first Thursday of the month, appropriate publication shall be made in a local newspaper advising of meeting change. Notice will also be placed on the exterior of the Council building, as well as the Bulletin Board within the Council building.

Here is the appropriate section of the By-Laws ... it doesn't grant the General Body that power per se, but it also doesn't explicitly prohibit it either. The Executive Board allowed the motion to change the date to carry and pass to a vote which passed.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Section 1 – Monthly Meeting

A. The regular monthly meeting will be held on the first Thursday of every month.

B. If the first Thursday of the month is a holiday, the regular monthly meeting will be held on the Thursday thereafter, which is not a holiday.

C. If because of inclement weather, the meeting cannot be held on the first Thursday of the month, the meeting will be held on the following Thursday.

D. If because of reason beyond human control, the meeting cannot be held on the first Thursday of the month, the meeting will be held on the following Thursday.

E. The President or Executive Board may call special meetings of the general body at any time.

F. Whenever a meeting date is changed from the first Thursday of the month, appropriate publication shall be made in a local newspaper advising of meeting change. Notice will also be placed on the exterior of the Marlton Recreation Council building, as well as the Bulletin Board within the Marlton Recreation Council building.

Here is the appropriate section of the By-Laws.

It doesn't grant the General Body that power per se, but it also doesn't explicitly prohibit it either.

The Executive Board allowed the motion to change the date to carry and pass to a vote which passed.

Now, a the minority who lost the election (who were in attendance at the Election and raised no issue about the validity of the meeting at that time) are claiming that the elections were illegal by virtue of the date of the meeting not being held on the date that was moved and passed.

Since the motion to change the date was in violation of the By-Laws, the Executive Board maintains that the General Meeting was valid, and thus, so were the elections.

I don't think you mean that. - "... since [X] was in violation of the bylaws, [then] the ... meeting was valid."

I think you dropped a "not" or inverted "valid" to/from "invalid".

Okay. So, let's reconfirm.

Q. which bylaw was violated?

#A, #B, #C, #D, #E, or #F?

[Guest Thomas]

I don't think you mean that. - "... since [X] was in violation of the bylaws, [then] the ... meeting was valid."

I think you dropped a "not" or inverted "valid" to/from "invalid".

Okay. So, let's reconfirm.

Q. which bylaw was violated?

#A, #B, #C, #D, #E, or #F?

The Executive Board ruled that the Motion moving the Meeting Date from the first Thursday to the second Thursday was invalid by reason of the second Thursday being a holiday.

[hmtcastle]

The Executive Board ruled that the Motion moving the Meeting Date from the first Thursday to the second Thursday was invalid by reason of the second Thursday being a holiday.

The general membership could not move the meeting to a date that violated the bylaws so that motion is null and void.

The executive board can't rescind a motion adopted by the general membership so the board's action is null and void.

So you had the meeting and the election on the proper date. What's the problem?

[Guest Thomas]

The general membership could not move the meeting to a date that violated the bylaws so that motion is null and void.

The executive board can't rescind a motion adopted by the general membership so the board's action is null and void.

So you had the meeting and the election on the proper date. What's the problem?

No problem at all from where I stand. I'm just trying to wrap my head around why some folks think the meeting (and thus the elections) were invalid. Other the obvious ... they didn't like the results of the election.

[Gary Novosielski]

No problem at all from where I stand. I'm just trying to wrap my head around why some folks think the meeting (and thus the elections) were invalid. Other the obvious ... they didn't like the results of the election.

Yes, they are attempting to raise the mythical Point of Personal Outrage, which yields to the Motion to Recoil from Something Previously Adopted, and takes precedence over the Call for the Tedious Question.