Guest Jeff Posted January 20, 2011 at 02:30 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 at 02:30 PM I apologize ahead of time for this possibly being a long question, but it will cover two topics that I really need an answer to.Scenario: A team held its annual election. At said election the president did not come to the meeting. The meeting and election was run by the vice-president. At the end of the election all offices were accepted and the vice-president declared the election closed and new offices were taken. Two days later the president (who didn't go to the meeting) sent out an e-mail stating that he was nullifying the election and putting last years officers back in office until he can hold another election.Question: Can the president bring up and nullifying an election that was held and closed by the vice-president?Scenario 2: In the same election as above, one of the offices (treasurer) was won by a probationary member. The sitting member is fighting the election stating that according to ":Roberts Rules" a probationary member can not hold an executive office. I can't find it anywhere in the book, and there is nothing in our by-laws stating that this can't happen.Question: Who is right when it comes to this topic?Thank you in advance for any assistance you can give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 20, 2011 at 02:39 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 at 02:39 PM 1) Absolutely not. If he has a legitimate beef (RONR, p. 244) he can bring it up at the next meeting but he doesn't make these decisions.2) Nothing in Robert's Rules states a probationary member can't hold office either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted January 20, 2011 at 03:02 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 at 03:02 PM 1) Absolutely not. If he has a legitimate beef (RONR, p. 244) he can bring it up at the next meeting but he doesn't make these decisions.I wonder if the President mentioned why he thinks the election should be held again? Was it because he had his little feelings hurt that he wasn't able to preside over the election? Also, since Jeff said that "all offices were accepted" that suggests he wasn't elected again and wants another bite at the apple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeff Posted January 20, 2011 at 03:09 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 at 03:09 PM I wonder if the President mentioned why he thinks the election should be held again? Was it because he had his little feelings hurt that he wasn't able to preside over the election? Also, since Jeff said that "all offices were accepted" that suggests he wasn't elected again and wants another bite at the apple. He said he reviewed the election results and supposedly found "immoral and illegal" things happened during the election. He was voted back in to office, but the office of treasurer is what he is upset about. He wants the sitting treasurer to stay in office. but was voted out in favor of the probationary member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 20, 2011 at 03:11 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 at 03:11 PM He said he reviewed the election results and supposedly found "immoral and illegal" things happened during the election. He was voted back in to office, but the office of treasurer is what he is upset about. He wants the sitting treasurer to stay in office. but was voted out in favor of the probationary member."I don't like the results" doesn't cut it.....if he thinks the bylaws were violated, fine, let him bring it up at a meeting. Dictatorial actions oustside of a meeting (or inside one for that matter) is not something condoned by any set of rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeff Posted January 20, 2011 at 03:38 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 at 03:38 PM Thank you to everyone who replied.My next question is, when I explain this at the special board meeting and advise them that it has to brought up at a regular membership meeting for discussion...would it take a 3/4 vote of the membership to call for a new election? Everyone but the president is happy with the result of this election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted January 20, 2011 at 04:03 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 at 04:03 PM Thank you to everyone who replied.My next question is, when I explain this at the special board meeting and advise them that it has to brought up at a regular membership meeting for discussion...would it take a 3/4 vote of the membership to call for a new election? Everyone but the president is happy with the result of this election.No discussion is necessary because the elections stand.1) There is nothing in RONR that says a probationary member cannot be elected to office. In fact as far as RONR is concerned someone who isn't even a member can be elected to office (RONR p. 431) and the probationary member is apparently a class of member in your organization.2) The President has no authority under RONR to declare the election null and void unless he can point to something on RONR p. 244 that would cause the election to be a continuing breach (and even if he does that ruling is subject to Appeal per RONR pp. 247-252)). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeff Posted January 20, 2011 at 06:45 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 at 06:45 PM Now the next step...This sitting President has now called a special board meeting for the 2010 board (not the new board) to bring me up on some type of charges. What would be the route to go in having this meeting since what you are telling me is if anything this meeting should have been called with the 2011 board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 20, 2011 at 07:10 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 at 07:10 PM This sitting President has now called a special board meeting for the 2010 board (not the new board) to bring me up on some type of charges. What would be the route to go in having this meeting since what you are telling me is if anything this meeting should have been called with the 2011 board.There is only one board, composed of the current members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted January 20, 2011 at 07:30 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 at 07:30 PM There is only one board, composed of the current members.I think the problem is that there is a disagreement about who are the current members of the Board. The President has (almost certainly) improperly thrown out the election so as far as he is concerned the Board in 2010 is the legitimate one and the problem would arise when the President is noticing the "2010 Board" of this Special Meeting (if the bylaws even allow Special Meetings to start off with). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 20, 2011 at 07:43 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 at 07:43 PM I think the problem is that there is a disagreement about who are the current members of the Board.Well then perhaps the current ("2011") members should show up so at least there'll be witnesses. And maybe they should show up first so they're "seated" when the former members arrive. Sort of a "Someone's sitting in my chair!" approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeff Posted January 20, 2011 at 10:19 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 at 10:19 PM A special meeting is in the by-laws, and he (the President) only sent the e-mail to the 2010 board members and advised in the e-mail that anyone else that comes to the meeting will not be allowed in the building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 20, 2011 at 10:36 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 at 10:36 PM A special meeting is in the by-laws, and he (the President) only sent the e-mail to the 2010 board members and advised in the e-mail that anyone else that comes to the meeting will not be allowed in the building.All the more reason to show up and witness this abuse of power (if that's what it turns out to be). That way he can't later claim that anyone could have attended but no one else showed up.Of course we're only getting one side of the story . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 21, 2011 at 01:21 AM Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 at 01:21 AM A special meeting is in the by-laws, and he (the President) only sent the e-mail to the 2010 board members and advised in the e-mail that anyone else that comes to the meeting will not be allowed in the building.Since not all of the current board members were notified (and they're the only members that matter), the board meeting is invalid and any business conducted is null and void. I think you need to take a look at FAQ #20 and deal with your President before he gets even more out of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.