NEAFC 70th Annual Conference.pdf - New England Association of ...
NEAFC 70th Annual Conference.pdf - New England Association of ...
NEAFC 70th Annual Conference.pdf - New England Association of ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
you deem it necessary, Mr. President, why not go through your<br />
Parliamentarian? But I think, for moving it along in a more<br />
simplified manner, have a vote and do it for Secretary-Treasurer.<br />
PRESIDENT MANSFIELD: I am going to turn this over to<br />
the parliamentarian because it will be his decision.<br />
RETIRED CHIEF MERTON S. DYER: [Peterborough, NH]<br />
The <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong>the organization shall consist <strong>of</strong> a Secretary and<br />
a Treasurer. They are two separate <strong>of</strong>fices. It appears the best<br />
procedure to follow is supposed to be followed for the election <strong>of</strong><br />
the Secretary by a ballot vote. There is nothing to preclude the<br />
election <strong>of</strong> the Treasurer by a voice vote. I think each election<br />
should go forward separately. Somebody may want to make a<br />
nomination for the other <strong>of</strong>fice. I think they should be done<br />
separately and I think that’s the way to deal with the problem.<br />
CHIEF JAMES M. HALLISE¥: [Brocktol~, MA] I rise to a<br />
point <strong>of</strong> order. I would make it clear whether it’s Robert’s Rules<br />
<strong>of</strong> Order, Cushing’s Rules <strong>of</strong> Order, Jefferson’s, you name it, no<br />
matter who you have. Our executive board has, in its wisdom,<br />
put <strong>of</strong>f till next year perhaps or some other time the changing<br />
from Secretary and Treasurer, which is in our by-laws not to<br />
separate them.<br />
So in the interest <strong>of</strong> moving this meeting along, I see nothing<br />
wrong in taking another nomination. You may have two votes<br />
if you’d like on Secretary or Treasurer, but we had a screening<br />
committee to go through the candidates. And the candida~tes<br />
were, in my understanding, the Secretary/Treasurer. Why is it<br />
that we’re going now, comma and semicolon and period in the<br />
constitution and by-laws to have two separate votes? And now<br />
Mr. Parliamentarian and you come across and say we may now<br />
have a voice vote if there are mo~e than two people. We haven’t<br />
had a vote <strong>of</strong> more than two people anyway. But to divide this<br />
when there is a contest between two capable individuals, why<br />
not have a nomination now? I don’t understand your objection,<br />
Mr. Parliamentarian, through Mr. Chairman.<br />
RETIRED CHIEF DYER: We are operating with Robert’s<br />
Rules <strong>of</strong> Order. The motion under the constitution, I don’t<br />
believe it was to separate or to join the <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong> Secretary and<br />
Treasurer, but to remove some <strong>of</strong> the restrictions on where they<br />
would live.<br />
As far as a voice vote, we have had more or less a ballot. The<br />
constitution calls for a ballot vote. You vote for Treasurer and if<br />
73