How to handle Bylaws violation

[Guest SE]

Elections were held at our Spring District Membership Meeting and I just realized that there was a violation of the Bylaws.

 

XIII.  Officers (Also see Bylaws, Article V)             

        A.  Elected Officers

                1.  No two elected officers shall be from the same club.

 

The newly elected District President and the Director-Secretary are from the same club. The slate came from the nominating committee and no other names were presented from the floor.

 

Is there a work around for this situation?

 

I did read this:

Bylaws cannot be suspended even by unanimous vote. But sometimes circumstances, expediency or strong assembly determination in behalf of a cause or proposition make violations necessary. In all such cases of violations, the action taken is illegal per se; but if no one objects at the time, or never challenges it at any time thereafter, a violation never challenged is never a violation.

 

What do we do?

 

 

[jstackpo]

Where on earth did you read THAT?    Not RONR, that's fer sher.

 

One possibility:  which one was elected, or declared elected, first?   He/she's got the office, and you have an incomplete election for the other office.

[Timothy]

Wikipedia is not the best source to use when trying to follow rules of order. Just think; if someone in a meeting doesn't like how things are being handled, they can just edit the the Wikipedia page and raise a point of order that their new edits must be followed.

 

The situation you describe constitutes a continuing breach, so at the next meeting, the president should make people aware of the breach and someone else should be elected for the position that was elected second. If the president does not do this, then a member should raise a point of order. If it is normal for the nominating committee to nominate people for these positions, then that committee should probably be informed, so they can have a nomination ready.

 

Someone who is more experienced may disagree with me, but it seems to me that the person who was elected improperly would continue to serve and fulfill any duties required between now and the next meeting, since it it won't be officially noted that the election was invalid until the next meeting. If having that person fulfill those duties is a problem, then it may be advisable to call a special meeting to complete the election.

[Richard Brown]

Did that quotation in fact come from Wikipedia?  Although it certainly did not come from RONR, there is, sad to say, a bit of truth in it from a practical standpoint. Note that I said "from a practical standpoint".   But, I digress....

 

I agree with both Dr. Stackpole  and Mr. Fish that the bylaws have been violated and that as a result there is an incomplete election.  I also agree with them that the first person elected was properly and legitimately elected, provided there were no other violations.  It is the second one "elected" whose election is probably void and of no effect. 

 

As to Mr. Fish's suggestion that the second one elected should serve until a new election is held, I tend to disagree, although from a practical standpoint it makes sense.  But, that person was not properly elected.... his election is void.  It is no different from electing someone who is ineligible for other reasons:  If the person is ineligible, he is ineligible to serve in the office for even one day.   RONR makes no provision for an "acting" officer.  

 

In my opinion, since it is an incomplete election, one of two things should happen, depending on the organizations bylaws:

 

1.  If the bylaws say that officers serve until their successors are elected, the the person who was holding that office at the time of the elections continues to serve until the election can be completed unless doing so would cause that person to be improperly holding two offices or would still amount to having two officers from the same club, in which case I don't have a ready answer.

 

2.  If the bylaws do not provide that officers hold office until their successors are elected, then I believe you have a vacancy in that office which must be filled by a new election for that office asap.

 

Like Mr. Fish, I'm anxious to hear what others have to say about all of this.

[Edgar Guest]

Did that quotation in fact come from Wikipedia?  

 

It presumably comes from Demeter's Manual as quoted in this Wikipedia article. 

[DrEntropy]

The quote from the original  post sounds familiar (beyond Wikipedia), I wonder if it is found in "Parliamentary Law" ?   (Demeter's Manual ? Unfortunately my copy is at the office.)

But nevertheless, as others have pointed out, and as RONR 444 l.34 - 446 l.2 makes clear, it is never too late to raise a point of order as one of the elections is null and void. Unless another meeting of the electing body will take place very soon, I would recommend that a special meeting be called (if the bylaws so permit).  As to who is the current officer in that position, it would depend on the bylaws, and Mr Brown has outlined the possibilities quite well.

 

 

 

EDIT: Yes the quote is from Demeter's manual, page 133 in the "Blue book edition".   In a section entitled "If the bylaws are illegally suspended".   

[Guest SE]

The slate was voted on as a whole (no nominations from the floor and with no objections) with the President at the top of the list.

 

Even if the Director-Secretary resigns from the club, I'm assuming that would be done after-the-fact and the election would be be invalid.  Is this correct? SE-guest

[jstackpo]

I take it you didn't follow the spelled-out detailed steps for reporting and announcing the results of elections as shown on p. 417 which would have made it clear who was elected first and was thus clearly the one elected.  Oh, well.

 

If the Dir-Sec resigns from the club - and from the putative office that he/she might have been elected to - that that would make it easy to declare - in a meeting - that the President was the one "really" elected, and you have an incomplete election on your hands.  So, next meeting, hold an election for that position. Give notice ahead of tie that you are going to complete the election for the Dir-Sec position.   (I don't think "after-the-fact" has any particular bearing on the matter.)

[Timothy]

The slate was voted on as a whole (no nominations from the floor and with no objections) with the President at the top of the list.

 

Even if the Director-Secretary resigns from the club, I'm assuming that would be done after-the-fact and the election would be be invalid.  Is this correct? SE-guest

 

While voting on the slate as a whole can sometimes cause confusion like this, I see no reason not to think that the order the positions and name appear on the slate is important. We see this with committees in that the first person on the list is the chairman, even if it is only until the first meeting.

 

When you say the Director-Secretary resigns from the club, are you suggesting that there is a way for the Director-Secretary to become qualified to hold the position by resigning from the club that the president is in? In that case, the most proper thing to do would be to go ahead and note that the election was improper and then elect the person to the Director-Secretary position. Since, the person was previously elected (improperly), I see no reason why it all couldn't be done with an assumed motion and unanimous consent. The president might say, "The election of Mr. Smith as Director-Secretary was improper because it created a violation of the bylaws by having two officers who are members of the same club. Since Mr. Smith is no longer a member of that club, he is eligible for that position. If there is no objection, Mr. Smith will serve as Director-Secretary."

[Guest Piere]

I have a question regarding a bylaw violation.  Our bylaws provide that a Board President shall only serve a 3 year term.  Our President is in her third year as Board President.  We want her to stay another year because of the reorganization that is going on within the college and the relationships she has with involved parties.  The entire nominating committee want her to stay and we want to presnt this to the Board of Governors and see if they will make an exception to the bylays.  Is there anything we can do to get her elected unders "special circumstances"  that would allow her to serve one more year and not the full 3 year term?

 

Thank you for your replies. 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Guest_Piere, Please post as a new topic. See here.