Bruce Carter

Sorry not to have responded sooner. My understanding of the proposed resolution of this issue is: 1. A bylaw ammendment to accept the results of a previously held (but inconsistent with the bylaws) as outlined by JJ would be appropriate to, in essence, validate the results of the election retroactively. (This despite the admonitions about making temporary changes in the bylaws; I'd find the exact reference but am about to go off to another meeting.) This solution is very appealing to the members of the (illegally constituted?) Executive Committee and the ad hoc committee on Bylaws which it appointed. Question: would it be possible to pass a simple motion to accept the the results rather than passing a bylaw amendment (which then permanently appears in the Bylaws until modified out)? Thanks for the advice.

The Executive Committee prepares a ballot which is then distributed as a written ballot. Voting occurs via mail and election results were announced at a subsequent meeting. College affiliation of members was not part of the announcement nor the ballot. In the past there was no parliamentarian and the administrative assistant (who retired) advised Executive Committee on compliance with bylaws.

I've been a University Senator for nearly 30 years and have served on the Executive Committee 6 or 7 times, chairing it on 4 different occasions. This part of the bylaws predates me and I am unaware if something preceding my tenure resulted in its inclusion in the bylaws. I suspect it was done to ensure that the larger schools and colleges did not dominate the administration of the Senate and that the smaller schools were included. We have never had this occasion arise to my knowledge. The administrative assistant who was the "memory of the Senate" retired and a new AA, unfamiliar with the Senate or Robert's Rules, was appointed to fill her slot. I suspect that the new person unwittingly allowed this election to occur where the former assistant would have pointed out the flaw in the election process. The only procedure that keeps this from happening, as far as I can tell, is the bylaw rule (and institutional memory).

The bylaws of my college were recently amended to try to ensure continuity on the standing committees whose members were elected by their respective academic departments or by the college faculty as a whole. The change was done to address the problem of continuity on the committees as people were leaving committees midterm (either resigning, failing to serve, or being granted sabbatical leaves). The Faculty Council (the Executive Committee of our Assembly) had adopted the practice of electing replacement members to serve full terms (rather than serving the remainder of a term) which resulted in entire committees standing for election rather than having some members continue. The assembly adopted the following amendment to address this issue: 3.11.e. In the event that a committee member is unable or unwilling to complete a term of office, the Faculty Council or the appropriate unit shall hold an election for a person to serve the remainder of the committee member’s term. 3.11.f. Every effort shall be made to provide for continuity on all committees. This is usually accomplished by staggering the terms of committee members so that not all members are replaced in a single election. I find the language clear (anyone who can't, won't or chooses not to serve is replaced, for the remainder of the original term) by the unit that elected the member). The chair of our Faculty Council is, however, convinced that this "rule" does not apply if the person is taking a sabbatical or research leave as such persons could still return to "their office" to complete "their term." The suggestion is that under such cases an election would be held to temporarily replace the absent member and that continuity would be served by having the original elected member return to the position automatically at the end of the absence, displacing the temporarily elected member. I would assert that this does not serve continuity as there are effectively two changes rather than one in terms that generally range from 2 to 3 years. I would assert that the office belongs to the electing constituency (not the person elected to serve) and that failure to serve (for whatever reason) meets the spirit of the bylaws. Ideas? I welcome feedback to help clarify this issue (which I don't see addressed in Robert's very clearly).

Actually, I agree that there has to be another election, that the prior election was contrary to the bylaws and that the bylaws revisions are effective immediately but not retroactive. The former chair of the Executive Committee (who would have been involved in nominating the "illegal" members) has proposed the bylaw revision to allow the current committee to stand WITHOUT an election because they (1) were elected, (2) acted in good faith in holding an election, and (3) are functioning as a committee, and (4) electing new members (and others resigning) would affect the work of the Executive Committee negatively. My understanding from all the replies to my query is that you can't retroactively change the bylaws and that another election has to be held to remain consistent with the organizational bylaws and Robert's. My question about conflict of interest is focused largely on the fact that the Bylaws Committee (which includes 2 of the contested members and the former Exec Chair; 3 of the 5 Committee members) is being asked to propose the bylaw amendment described above. This would mean that a fair number of the members of this ad hoc committee would be voting on proposing an amendment that legitimizes their currently illegitimate positions (which is where I see the conflict of interest). The proposed amendment would then go to the Executive Committee (which is where the problem lies anyway) where the members who were "illegally" elected could vote as could the current members who put forward the "illegal" slate. One of these members has raised the issue of whether anyone has suffered "material harm" as a result of the election and pointed out that new elections will be held at the end of the spring semester anyway. My queries are to see if my interpretations of Robert's are correct (at least there is concurrence here) and to bolster arguments by appealing to authorities for the interpretations. Of course, as parliamentarian I can only advise, but I am on the verge of resigning that role so that I can speak freely as a senator on the issues.

I concur that the body can modify the bylaws, that the modification takes effect immediately and is not retroactive, and that a new election should be held to correct the earlier error. The current suggestion (above) is modifying the bylaws to excuse this violation IN ORDER to avoid a second election (and disrupting the currently functioning committee). Thus, the proposed amendment to the bylaws would suspend the prior bylaw provision in order to accommodate the flawed election on a one-time basis. I'm concerned about changing the Bylaws to accommodate the violation (basically introducing into the text of the Bylaws a statement to make a one-time exception). This seems to go against the principles about "encumbering bylaws with provisions which have an effect for only a limited time" (Robert's Rules, 11 ed., p. 597 line 15). I'm also concerned that the current chair of the ad hoc Bylaws Committee was chair of the Executive Committee when the original election occurred; his proposal is to amend the bylaws so that no election will be necessary (which I think violates Robert's). This bylaw amendment to change the allocation of senators on the Executive Committee could be adopted by the body of the whole on which, as might be expected, the representation of faculty from the liberal arts college is higher than the representation of senators from other schools just as is the case with the over-representation of faculty from the liberal arts college on the Executive Committee. One final query. My reading of Robert's Rules would indicate that those faculty who are currently on the Executive Committee (and who could continue serving if the proposed bylaw passes) should not vote on the bylaw revision as they have a conflict of interest (Robert's Rules, p. 407, lines 20-30). Am I just being a stick in the mud?