Re: [registrars] Re: Not so fast Rick!!!!! Hold off on the election

[Michael Bilow <mbilow@registrationtek.com>]

I don't have Robert's in front of me, but my recollection is (1) our
bylaws did not adopt Robert's as its parliamentary authority, and (2)
Robert's has a number of alternative mechanisms for elections procedures,
intended to be suited to a range of different organizations which might
range from those who meet in person once a week to those who conduct all
their business by mail once every year.  Robert's certainly does not
intend that it be used as a primary authority on elections, and it
strongly suggests that such matters be addressed in detail in the bylaws.

It is also worth noting that Robert's is a very American product, and a
lot of its practices will seem strange or unnatural to those outside the
United States tradition of parliamentary practice.

In any event, it is my recollection that Robert's imposes no universal
requirement that a nomination be accepted by the close of nominations,
although it makes sense to do this where the election is being conducted
by a small group meeting in person and where all of the nominees are
physically present in the room.  Where the organization is more dispersed
and the balloting will be conducted by mail, there is no logical reason to
impose such a requirement and, to the best of my recollection, Robert's
does not do so.  Your action certainly comes as a surprise.

-- Mike


On 2003-06-02 at 11:44 -0700, Rick Wesson wrote:

> 
> Jim,
> 
> did Dr. Berryhill agree to stand before nominations close? Our bylaws to
> state the use of Roberts Rules and in section 4.3.5 nomees are required to
> post a acceptance by the close of nominations shich closed las friday,
> furthremore you may consule section II of the rules of proceure.
> 
> Since we did not get an acceptance posed to the list before friday
> I don't see how we can have an election for Secretary at this time.
> 
> I propose that we hold another nomination period for secretary after the
> eletions of the seats we have, at that time you may nominate Dr Berryhill
> for secretary.
> 
> -rick
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Jim Archer wrote:
> 
> > Rick, Dr. Berryhill has agreed to stand for election.  As you suggested in
> > a private email to me last week, I carefully reviewed the bylaws posted on
> > the RC site and saw no requirement in the bylaws that John actually accept
> > the nomination.  His nomination for both Chair and Secretary is valid.
> >
> > Furthermore, if neither Elana nor Rob were nominated for Secretary then
> > they can not be on the ballot.
> >
> > I insist that this election not begin until this issue is resolved!
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > --On Monday, June 02, 2003 8:05 AM -0700 Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Registrars:
> > >
> > > The period for nominations have closed, the ballot will open on today.
> > >
> > > The current nominees are:
> > >
> > >   Chair:
> > >     o Elana Broitman
> > >     o Rob Hall
> > >
> > >   Secretary:
> > >
> > >
> > >   Treasurer:
> > >     o Paul Westley
> > >
> > >   CTO:
> > >     o Rick Wesson
> > >
> > >
> > > Since Mr Berryhill did not accept the nomination for Secretary I would
> > > like to suggest that we have Elana and Rob run for Secretary also.
> > >
> > > remember each seat must get at least 51% of the vote to win.
> > >
> > >
> > > -rick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>