"Special Election"

[Guest Suddenly Susan]

Our bylaws indicate that vacant seats may be filled by a "special election" called by the president.

Because it is a "special election" does this mean that terms (nominations, voting methods) can be changed by the president as well?

The president believes this is so - and is issuing some interesting conditions regarding this election. All of these decisions are being made outside of our meetings, as well. Group feels powerless.

[hmtcastle]

Because it is a "special election" does this mean that terms (nominations, voting methods) can be changed by the president as well?

No, the authority to call a special election is just that. The election is "special" because it's not "regular", just like special meetings vs. regular meetings. It doesn't give any "special" powers to the president.

Ask your president to show you the rule that gives him the extraordinary authority he claims. And remember that he has only one vote so "the group" should not feel powerless.

[jstackpo]

And just to be clear on all possible points, a notice is required for the special election - RONR, p. 557, lines 17-19

[Guest Suddenly Susan]

No, the authority to call a special election is just that. The election is "special" because it's not "regular", just like special meetings vs. regular meetings. It doesn't give any "special" powers to the president.

Ask your president to show you the rule that gives him the extraordinary authority he claims. And remember that he has only one vote so "the group" should not feel powerless.

It is not the vote, it is that this entire election was called in between meetings, via an email discussion list, and the vote is to occur at the beginning of the next meeting. Many of the members do not even know this is occurring. They will arrive at the meeting and be expected to vote. Or told they cannot vote - because the president is issuing very interesting decrees about who does and does not have the right to vote in this "special election".

Is is appropriate for members who are opposed to this flagrant disregard for our bylaws to arrive at the next meeting with our laundry list of points of order? I don't know where to start!

I addressed the chair in this way: "Please tell the members where in the bylaws the president is authorized to make the following decision."

And then I quoted the chair's statement.

I received a response - but not to my question. The following are points brought up by the president in private emails to me: 1) this is a special election, therefore special circumstances apply, 2) the bylaws are inadequate, therefore the president can make 'logical' decisions on how to proceed, 3) the president should not be obstructed in this process by a meddling member such as myself, 4) and the president feels no need to respond to my question because I am the only member who has raised an issue, 5) dealing with the details of a "special election" is a small administrative detail, 6) and the president questions my right as a voting member.

Of course, the president cited no bylaw in support of any of these statements.

I need a strong position. I need some reinforcement in the face of this hammering. I am being accused of obstructing the group's process - though my objective is to protect it!

[hmtcastle]

I need a strong position. I need some reinforcement in the face of this hammering.

All you need are the votes on your side. The president has one vote. Get more members to agree with you than agree with him and you win.

[David A Foulkes]

And after all this, get rid of this guy. See FAQ 20 and read Chapter XX in the Big Book (RONR 10th Edition). And tell everyone you can what's going on, why it's wrong, why it's bad, and how they'll be hurt by this continued disregard for the rules, democracy, and apple pie. And if you're still in the minority after all that, join a different group (if you can). You can beat your head against the wall all you want, but no one has the right to do it to you.

[Josh Martin]

It is not the vote, it is that this entire election was called in between meetings, via an email discussion list, and the vote is to occur at the beginning of the next meeting. Many of the members do not even know this is occurring. They will arrive at the meeting and be expected to vote. Or told they cannot vote - because the president is issuing very interesting decrees about who does and does not have the right to vote in this "special election".

Is is appropriate for members who are opposed to this flagrant disregard for our bylaws to arrive at the next meeting with our laundry list of points of order? I don't know where to start!

Yes, it is quite appropriate. I'd start with either the lack of proper notice or his attempts to deprive members of their voting rights, as those seem to be the most egregious violations. For backup, see RONR, 10th ed., pg. 116, lines 8-17; pg. 255, lines 13-17, 22-28; pg. 279, lines 27-30; pg. 440, lines 21-25. The pg. 279 citation notes that previous notice is required to fill a vacancy in office, the pg. 116 citation defines previous notice, and the pg. 255 citations note that rules requiring previous notice are not suspendable, and that members may not be deprived of the right to vote except through disciplinary procedure, and the pg. 440 citation debunks this nonsense of "I can do it unless the Bylaws say I can't." It's quite the opposite.

[Guest Susan]

Yes, it is quite appropriate. I'd start with either the lack of proper notice or his attempts to deprive members of their voting rights, as those seem to be the most egregious violations. For backup, see RONR, 10th ed., pg. 116, lines 8-17; pg. 255, lines 13-17, 22-28; pg. 279, lines 27-30; pg. 440, lines 21-25. The pg. 279 citation notes that previous notice is required to fill a vacancy in office, the pg. 116 citation defines previous notice, and the pg. 255 citations note that rules requiring previous notice are not suspendable, and that members may not be deprived of the right to vote except through disciplinary procedure, and the pg. 440 citation debunks this nonsense of "I can do it unless the Bylaws say I can't." It's quite the opposite.

THANK YOU!