[img]smile.gif[/img] ...I'm still tired from a long weekend. This reads somewhat harsh, but it is easier to add an advance apology than try to rewrite in more soothing phrases... [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>5 of the 6 voting members of the PTO have agreed that we should have a new election <hr></blockquote>

Let me get this straight...you have SIX people vote, five of you are capable of agreeing upon something, and you still managed to get into a fight? :confused: How did you manage to accomplish this? :confused:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>since this is not a valid ballot and the co-presidents would no longer have the majority of the casts ballots.<hr></blockquote>

I'm guessing your vote was 4-2?

If the "invalid ballot" really is a spoiled ballot, it should be thrown out and the result is 3-2. You still have a majority of the valid ballots cast.

If the "invalid ballot" is a combination that could be voted for (i.e. write in votes), the result would be 3-2-1. If so, then you have a plurality. Do your bylaws require a majority for election? If they do not explicitly state that a majority is required, then the plurality wins.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>we had co-presidents running against one single president. This does not seem right.<hr></blockquote>

I fail to see the issue here. I guess that if you only have six voters, and three of them are members of the two ballot options, the problem is that you only have three votes in play? Why do you only have six people voting? Is it because only six showed up to vote? Or are only six allowed to vote?

If more than six are allowed to vote, than I don't see that one ballot option having an extra "guaranteed" vote really makes a difference. If only six are allowed to vote, I think you've got bigger problems than having people want to run as co-president.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>We believe that as long as it is not in the constituion, it is not allowed.
<hr></blockquote>

The classic conundrum. Is it so that whatever is not allowed is forbidden. Or is it so that whatever is not forbidden is allowed.

I notice frequent use of the word "WE" in your message. On the one hand, it appears that only two of the six voters voted against the co-president option. On the other hand, you say that five of six want a new vote, which seems to imply that one of the two co-candidates is calling for a new election also. Who exactly is "WE"?

And finally, having been a co-president, I am curious why you seem so dead set against it?

"5 of the 6 voting members of the PTO have agreed that we should have a new election since this is not a valid ballot and the co-presidents would no longer have the majority of the casts ballots."

That can be done and sounds like that is what the membership wants. I don't have my Robert's Rules in front of me, but if a new election is wanted and the majority is asking for it the Board really should honor that wish. Now weither or not they will is another issue but in the meantime "legally" a special election can be called by the past president or even I believe the membership. If you can, see if there is something you can use in your constitution. You may even want a committe formed to oversee the new election.

*Check your constitution
*Make sure the members are serious
*Check RR for specifics
*Ask for a new election

according to our PTO constitution there is no mention of co-presidents. All that is mentioned is :"a president". We did have co-presidents a few years ago but one quit after only a few months. Now it has come up again. We say that it is against the constitution. The current president has a copy of a letter from the past president at that time saying that the general assembly would be voting on this at the next meeting. No one can find any minutes from the meeting when the voting was to take place. I have contacted to of the board members from that time. They say that it was an exception for the one year only. That is why it is not in the contstitution. The president at that time says that she can not remember exactly what went on.
The current president says that since we had co-presidents it must have been apprroved and just omitted by accident when the constitution was retyped. We believe that as long as it is not in the constituion, it is not allowed.
What can be done about this now???

Also because of the co-presidents running for president, we had co-presidents running against one single president. This does not seem right.
During this election a voter voted for the co-pres. and also wrote on of the co-pres' name in for vice-president. This does not seem like a valid ballot.

5 of the 6 voting members of the PTO have agreed that we should have a new election since this is not a valid ballot and the co-presidents would no longer have the majority of the casts ballots.

Please help!!