Voiding an Election on Basis of Disqualification

[Guest Deana]

I serve on a board that just held officer elections. Following the election, it was discovered that one or more elected officers did not meet a qualification in the bylaws stating that qualified nominees must have served on the board for at least one year. Since the board has the ability if it so chooses to revise the bylaws/redefine the qualifications, what is the process we should follow? Is the following process acceptable? 1) The full board should be promptly notified of the issue and a meeting convened by the Chair. 2) A voting member would call for the election of specific officers to be voided on the basis of non-qualification of individuals elected. 3) The Chair would then formally void the election of these officers, establish a new election date, and put forth a call for nominations. 4) At any point, a voting member of the board could bring forth a motion to amend the qualifications for nomination as specified in the bylaws. 5) If the motion passes, any nominations forthcoming would need to meet the standards for qualification as specified in the amended bylaws.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I serve on a board that just held officer elections.

Following the election, it was discovered that one or more elected officers did not meet a qualification in the bylaws stating that qualified nominees must have served on the board for at least one year.

Since the board has the ability if it so chooses to revise the bylaws/redefine the qualifications, what is the process we should follow?

You want advice on "how to obey your customized rules?"

Ain't gonna happen.

Someone would have to read the bylaws.

And we answer questions on Robert's Rules of Order, not questions about "How do we obey our rules which are not taken from Robert's Rules of Order?"

Is the following process acceptable?

1) The full board should be promptly notified of the issue and a meeting convened by the Chair. 2) A voting member would call for the election of specific officers to be voided on the basis of non-qualification of individuals elected. 3) The Chair would then formally void the election of these officers, establish a new election date, and put forth a call for nominations. 4) At any point, a voting member of the board could bring forth a motion to amend the qualifications for nomination as specified in the bylaws. 5) If the motion passes, any nominations forthcoming would need to meet the standards for qualification as specified in the amended bylaws.

You want to know if those steps CONFORM with your own rules?

Do you have a question about Robert's Rules of Order?

[Gary Novosielski]

I serve on a board that just held officer elections. Following the election, it was discovered that one or more elected officers did not meet a qualification in the bylaws stating that qualified nominees must have served on the board for at least one year. Since the board has the ability if it so chooses to revise the bylaws/redefine the qualifications, what is the process we should follow? Is the following process acceptable? 1) The full board should be promptly notified of the issue and a meeting convened by the Chair. 2) A voting member would call for the election of specific officers to be voided on the basis of non-qualification of individuals elected. 3) The Chair would then formally void the election of these officers, establish a new election date, and put forth a call for nominations. 4) At any point, a voting member of the board could bring forth a motion to amend the qualifications for nomination as specified in the bylaws. 5) If the motion passes, any nominations forthcoming would need to meet the standards for qualification as specified in the amended bylaws.

That sounds like a load of nonsense.

Your bylaws will have an article in them containing rules for their own amendment. That is the only way they may be changed. It is unlikely that you can change them without prior notice and subsequent approval by the full membership. It is unlikely that the board can amend the qualifications for members of the board at a single, special board meeting. That would be referred to as a coup d'état.

But If you had a person elected to an office who is not eligible to serve according to your bylaws, then you have a "continuing breach" (RONR p. 244(a)) of the rules, and a Point of Order can be raised at any time and ruled on by the chair. No motion or "formal voiding", just a ruling that the election of those persons was null and void. You then need to complete what is now an incomplete election for those offices.

But since the election of officers is normally a matter for the general assembly, these things should take place at a membership meeting, not a board meeting,

[Josh Martin]

Since the board has the ability if it so chooses to revise the bylaws/redefine the qualifications,

Really? Is this a stand-alone board? If not, the power to amend the Bylaws is generally reserved for the general membership.

what is the process we should follow?

Raise a Point of Order that the elections of the unqualified individual(s) are null and void and Appeal from the decision of the chair if necessary. Then follow the procedures in your Bylaws for filling vacancies. If your Bylaws are silent on this, then the board just holds another election.

If the board really does have the authority to amend the Bylaws and the board wants to keep these board members, you could also just amend the Bylaws. No need to jump through a series of hoops if that's the end goal.

Is the following process acceptable? 1) The full board should be promptly notified of the issue and a meeting convened by the Chair. 2) A voting member would call for the election of specific officers to be voided on the basis of non-qualification of individuals elected. 3) The Chair would then formally void the election of these officers, establish a new election date, and put forth a call for nominations. 4) At any point, a voting member of the board could bring forth a motion to amend the qualifications for nomination as specified in the bylaws. 5) If the motion passes, any nominations forthcoming would need to meet the standards for qualification as specified in the amended bylaws.

This sounds correct up to the point of the chair ruling the elections null and void. I'm not sure after that point, as I don't know what the vacancy-filling procedure in your Bylaws is, and I'm still unsure that your Bylaws may be amended by the board. Additionally, amending the Bylaws generally requires previous notice.

But since the election of officers is normally a matter for the general assembly, these things should take place at a membership meeting, not a board meeting,

The original post stated that the board elected officers. In many organizations, the general membership elects the board members and the board elects officers. It's also possible that this is a stand-alone board.

[Gary Novosielski]

Raise a Point of Order that the elections of the unqualified individual(s) are null and void and Appeal from the decision of the chair if necessary. Then follow the procedures in your Bylaws for filling vacancies. If your Bylaws are silent on this, then the board just holds another election.

I'm curious why, if the election were indeed ruled null and void, this would trigger the vacancy-filling provisions. It would certainly not be the case if the election had failed to take place.

Since "null and void" implies that the election had no effect, I don't understand why what we've got here is not an incomplete election.

[Josh Martin]

I'm curious why, if the election were indeed ruled null and void, this would trigger the vacancy-filling provisions. It would certainly not be the case if the election had failed to take place.

Since "null and void" implies that the election had no effect, I don't understand why what we've got here is not an incomplete election.

Makes sense to me. I clearly didn't think it through enough.