Bylaws Language and the Completion of an Election

[Guest Touman]

Presently our bylaws contain the language that states: 

"The election of officers for the new year will occur at the regular April meeting with installation in the regular May meeting of all new officers".  Our bylaws as presently written require a 2/3 majority to declare a winner.  During the April meeting seven (7) attempts and several hours where spent trying to declare a winner with no success.  A motion was made and passed unanimously to adjourn the meeting without declaring a clear winner.  During the May meeting the election was complete and winners were declared.  Today, I am being told that because we did not complete the election in April, that we breached the bylaws and we have been ordered to conduct a special election for the position to which were incomplete at the conclusion of the April meeting.  In my thinking, it seems that we did comply with the bylaws requirement by conducting elections in April even though winners were not declared for all positions at that time.   Based on the wording of the bylaws, where we obligated to complete the election in April? Also provided we were required to complete the election in April, does this meet the requirements of Roberts Rules of Order in regards to exceptions to a timely point of order?  I mean the elections where in April and this literally has just been raised as an issue. 

[jstackpo]

You did just fine.  Tell your (ill-informed) person to go read RONR page 444, lines 9 through 15.

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Dr. Stackpole. 

[Guest Touman]

Thanks.  I referenced that exact section and was still told I was wrong. 

[Weldon Merritt]

55 minutes ago, Guest Touman said:

Thanks.  I referenced that exact section and was still told I was wrong. 

If they are not willing to accept the "black letter law," I'm not sure anything we say will be of much help. But unless whoever is doing the "ordering" that you referred to in your oiginal post can show you a rule superior to your bylaws (e.g., an applicable rule of a parent organization) that supports their claim, or unless they have the authority to issue binding orders to your group, I would say ignore them and move on.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

1 hour ago, Guest Touman said:

Thanks.  I referenced that exact section and was still told I was wrong. 

Also see RONR 11th ed., p. 95, ll. 4-12.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

23 hours ago, Guest Touman said:

Today, I am being told that because we did not complete the election in April, that we breached the bylaws and we have been ordered to conduct a special election for the position to which were incomplete at the conclusion of the April meeting.

Aside from flouting the rules of order, this reasoning is absurd. If the rule is to be that the election may only be held at the April meeting, then you must wait until next April to complete it.

Now, just who is doing this ordering? Are you a subordinate organization? Ordinarily, nothing need be done about such a complaint made outside of a Point of Order in a meeting.

[Joshua Katz]

10 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Aside from flouting the rules of order, this reasoning is absurd. If the rule is to be that the election may only be held at the April meeting, then you must wait until next April to complete it.

 

Exactly.  If the claim is "nope, April means April, can't have it any other time" then just what is the plan for this special election?

[Richard Brown]

Guest Touman, the folks who are telling you that you must have a special election are just plain wrong.  The provisions of RONR cited by Dr. Stackpole (jstackpo) and Hieu Huynh are right on point and are correct.  When an election is not completed on the date specified in the bylaws (usually the annual meeting), it is simply completed as soon as practical, usually at the next meeting.  Even without specifically postponing the election or setting up an adjourned meeting, this is still the way to do it.  Completing the election at the May meeting was completely in accordance with RONR and was the appropriate thing to do.  If someone disagrees, have them SHOW YOU an applicable rule in writing to the contrary.

BTW, there is no authority in RONR for holding a "special election" in such a case.  You had an incomplete election as defined on page 444 and you completed the election at the next regular meeting, just as directed by that same page.  Since some of your members reading this thread may not have access to RONR, I will quote the applicable language from page 444 here:

"PROVIDING FOR COMPLETION OF AN ELECTION. If an assembly wishes to adjourn when an election is incomplete, an adjourned meeting (9) should be provided for. If such an adjourned meeting is not provided for and the organization will hold another regular business session before a quarterly time interval has elapsed (see pp. 89–90), the election is completed at the next regular meeting."

That language from RONR is about as clear as anything can be.  Nothing else should be needed, but, if they want more, here is the applicable language from page 95:  "Business that is required to be attended to "at the annual meeting" can be taken up at any time (when it is in order) during the session of the annual meeting, or, in other words, either at that meeting as originally convened or at any adjournment of it. If such an item of business has actually been taken up as required during the session of the annual meeting, it may also be postponed beyond that session in accordance with the regular rules for the motion to Postpone (see 14, especially p. 185)."

What you did was correct and that should be the end of it.

[Guest Touman]

Thanks to all who responded.  Unfortunately I was literally forced to hold a special election. I will make a separate post explaining this matter in greater details as I am really going to need some help on this one. Thanks again. 

 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Here is the other post.