Appointing Board members to vacancies

[Guest Catherine Halkett]

If there are not enough people standing for election to fill the board; how many people may be legally appointed to fill the other positions?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

If there are not enough people standing for election to fill the board;

how many people may be legally appointed to fill the other positions?

"How many?"

All of them.

Everybody.

There is no restriction.

That is, just because no one is standing for election, that fact does not imply that (a.) elections cannot be held. (b.) vacancies cannot be filled.

There is no rule in Robert's Rules of Order which establishes a qualification for office.

• Even *I* can be elected to serve as a director in *your* organization.

• Even *you* can be appointed to serve as a director in *my* organization.

I leave open the question about who has the authority to fill vacancies in your organization.

[hmtcastle]

If there are not enough people standing for election to fill the board; how many people may be legally appointed to fill the other positions?

None.

Mid-term vacancy-filling provisions can not be used to complete an incomplete election.

[Josh Martin]

If there are not enough people standing for election to fill the board; how many people may be legally appointed to fill the other positions?

If there are not enough people "standing for election," the solution is to conduct the election anyway and proceed until all positions have been filled. This will require either write-in votes or nominations to be reopened. A mid-term vacancy filling procedure may not be used to complete an incomplete election.

[Guest Nancy N.]

You know, it would really be better for everyone if, when replying, posters (courteously, of course) not just post contradictory statements, but acknowledge what previous posters said and explain why they disagree. Other wise you have threads -- usually I call them "discussion threads," but these kinds of postings do not constitute meaningful discussion -- like this one, where an innocent reader might have to scratch his head and flip a three-sided coin to see who to believe, or just figure, Oh, this time I'm gonna believe what Martin says 'cause he's the only one whose surname is not made up of English common nouns, which has always annoyed me. Reminiscent of that children's joke about a teacher suggesting as a mnemonic to remember the name of the poet Bobby Burns, to imagine an English policeman (a bobbie) on fire; to which a pupil replies that it would confuse him with Robert Browning.

(Just sayin.)

[Guest Nancy N.]

Oh nuts. "Martin" also comprises two words. Nuts, maybe I should answer the question myslef. Nobody ever said Nancy N. makes any sense.

[Guest Nancy N.]

... Nobody ever said Nancy N. makes any sense.

You know I didn't mean it that way! Stop that laughing, you!

[hmtcastle]

You know, it would really be better for everyone if . . .

. . . he's the only one whose surname is not made up of English common nouns, which has always annoyed me.

Not nearly as annoying as presumptuous Guests.

[tctheatc]

Nancy, I left this board some time ago because honestly i found some of the responses to be off-putting. I've come back recently, more knowledgeable about RONR myself for having read it, but still green compared to the many parliamentarians who post here. Seems to me that the more confident I am in my knowledge, the more I get their humor and appreciate their back and forth. yes, sometimes the answers can seem contradictory, but maybe if you look at it more as a bumpy journey toward the truth.... Reasonable people disagree about some of these rules and how they're applicable and sometimes someone provides a reference that makes some of us say 'hmmmm, hadn't thought of that.' Sometimes you'll just need to go with what makes sense and try it out. Remember, Point of order exists because not everyone will always agree how the rules apply. In the end, the assembly rules.

Revel in the contradictory answers, for there IS a lot of insight there. And decide how best to proceed with the given references applied to YOUR situation.

[Dan Honemann]

Nancy, I left this board some time ago because honestly i found some of the responses to be off-putting. I've come back recently, more knowledgeable about RONR myself for having read it, but still green compared to the many parliamentarians who post here. Seems to me that the more confident I am in my knowledge, the more I get their humor and appreciate their back and forth. yes, sometimes the answers can seem contradictory, but maybe if you look at it more as a bumpy journey toward the truth.... Reasonable people disagree about some of these rules and how they're applicable and sometimes someone provides a reference that makes some of us say 'hmmmm, hadn't thought of that.' Sometimes you'll just need to go with what makes sense and try it out. Remember, Point of order exists because not everyone will always agree how the rules apply. In the end, the assembly rules.

Revel in the contradictory answers, for there IS a lot of insight there. And decide how best to proceed with the given references applied to YOUR situation.

But, above all else, fear the Wrath of Dan!

[George Mervosh]

But, above all else, fear the wrath of Dan!

Yeah, but that wrath eases when a Beefeaters neat is in front of you, especially if someone else is buying

[Rob Elsman]

Nancy, I left this board some time ago because honestly i found some of the responses to be off-putting. I've come back recently, more knowledgeable about RONR myself for having read it, but still green compared to the many parliamentarians who post here. Seems to me that the more confident I am in my knowledge, the more I get their humor and appreciate their back and forth. yes, sometimes the answers can seem contradictory, but maybe if you look at it more as a bumpy journey toward the truth.... Reasonable people disagree about some of these rules and how they're applicable and sometimes someone provides a reference that makes some of us say 'hmmmm, hadn't thought of that.' Sometimes you'll just need to go with what makes sense and try it out. Remember, Point of order exists because not everyone will always agree how the rules apply. In the end, the assembly rules.

Revel in the contradictory answers, for there IS a lot of insight there. And decide how best to proceed with the given references applied to YOUR situation.

I think a lot of what seems to be contradiction actually results from slightly different interpretations of the fact situations due to the necessity of being brief on this forum. In many instances, the correct answer can be radically different with just the slightest difference of understanding of a fact or the supply of just one more. With the possible exception of just a few "hot" issues, I'm willing to bet my morning donuts that there is a general agreement on what the rules say. It's just those pesky little facts. They ruin everything, don't they?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I think a lot of what seems to be contradiction actually results from slightly different interpretations of the fact situations due to the necessity of being brief on this forum. In many instances, the correct answer can be radically different with just the slightest difference of understand of a fact or the supply of just one more. With the possible exception of just a few "hot" issues, I'm willing to bet my morning donuts that there is a general agreement on what the rules say. It's just those pesky little facts. They ruin everything, don't they?

Indeed.

The focus of the posted reply(s) changes the meaning of the question.

Is it a question about

(a.) the quantity of people standing for election?

(b.) the quantity of people who can serve out the remaining open terms of office?

(c.) the source(s) of people who can stand for election or who can serve out the remaining terms of office?

(d.) the (bogus?) method of filling empty seats?

An answer to #a will be irrelevant to #b, and vice versa, and likewise for #c, #d, in 24 (i.e., 1x2x3x4 -- 4 factoral) combinations.

You might say, each poster gives complementary answers, not contradictory answers!

[Gary Novosielski]

Yeah, but that wrath eases when a Beefeaters neat is in front of you, especially if someone else is buying

Sure, what doesn't?