Election - positions to be decided by executive?

[hollasa]

The tradition of a particular organization I am on has been to elect directors, and then at the first meeting of directors, the directors vote among themselves to fill the various positions. At my organization's meeting last week, we held an election, several people were nominated for directors, and 6 people accepted the nominations. Given that there can be 7 people serving on the executive committee, all those who accepted the nominations were acclaimed.

After the meeting, a question was been raised by a member as to the rules of order that allow this to happen, and I'm not sure that this is a proper procedure.

(side note: imagine, an organizational tradition that isn't supported by the bylaws - never happens!)

I've copied four sentences points from our bylaws:

Elections

* The executive committee shall consist of a chair person, vice chairperson, secretary, treasurer, and up to 3 directors.

* The executive shall be elected from the representatives or current executive officers in attendance at the AGM.

Voting

* Voting may be done by a show of hands or by secret ballot.

* Election of executive officers shall be done by secret ballot and the ballots shall be destroyed after the election.

I will also note that having taken a harder look at these bylaws, I think they need a fair bit of work...

Questions:

* What, if anything, would allow our organization to elect directors, and then have the directors elect among themselves for positions?

* If this is not proper procedure, do we need to re-do the elections for this year?

* "Election of executive officers shall be done by secret ballot" also worries me - no one challenged this at the time, could this be considered a continuing breach?

* likewise, a nominating committee "shall be appointed", and wasn't - would this necessitate re-doing the elections?

Thank you for any assistance! I've been looking in my copy of the 10th edition, but haven't found anything really helpful.

[hmtcastle]

* "Election of executive officers shall be done by secret ballot" also worries me - no one challenged this at the time, could this be considered a continuing breach?

Yes. Your other problems pale in comparison.

[hollasa]

Yes. Your other problems pale in comparison.

However, no one is challenging the election based on having ballots (for one, everyone who was attending the meeting was nominated for a position). There wasn't any interest in electing different people to the executive. There would not have been any changes to the results if there was a secret ballot, given the situation of having fewer nominees than positions.

What there is a concern about, that may be brought up at the next meeting, is whether or not people should be elected to specific positions, or if this should be left up to the executive.

[hollasa]

Please note that I'm not saying that not having the ballot vote was a good thing - it's just that no one is bringing that up as an issue, other than my noticing that hey, that's something that should be looked at for bylaw changes or for future elections.

[Josh Martin]

However, no one is challenging the election based on having ballots (for one, everyone who was attending the meeting was nominated for a position). There wasn't any interest in electing different people to the executive. There would not have been any changes to the results if there was a secret ballot, given the situation of having fewer nominees than positions.

None of this matters. If your Bylaws require a ballot vote, you must have a ballot vote. The election, as it stands, is null and void.

What there is a concern about, that may be brought up at the next meeting, is whether or not people should be elected to specific positions, or if this should be left up to the executive.

I don't see anything in the cited portions of your Bylaws which suggests that the Executive Committee plays any role in the election process.

[Gary c Tesser]

[snip]

I think the argument, or question, figures that if the bylaws do not specify that the procedure for electing the officers is direct election by the membership, per se, then nothing, especially the bylaws, prohibits the organization's using the common other procedure whereby the membership elects the directors as a lump, and then the directors, themselves, elect the officers.

If that's the argument, then I think its refutation is irrefutable but laborious, except that it can be summarized with the likes of "Pshaw" or "Humbug."

[Dan Honemann]

I think the argument, or question, figures that if the bylaws do not specify that the procedure for electing the officers is direct election by the membership, per se, then nothing, especially the bylaws, prohibits the organization's using the common other procedure whereby the membership elects the directors as a lump, and then the directors, themselves, elect the officers.

If that's the argument, then I think its refutation is irrefutable but laborious, except that it can be summarized with the likes of "Pshaw" or "Humbug."

Well, if the "tradition" Margaret speaks of is one of long standing, there must be some reason why the members considered this procedure to be in accordance with the bylaws (or, at least, not in conflict with them).

In any event, if (as Margaret thinks may happen), a point of order is raised at the next membership meeting, the members present will have another opportunity to decide for themselves what their bylaws mean.

[hollasa]

I think the argument, or question, figures that if the bylaws do not specify that the procedure for electing the officers is direct election by the membership, per se, then nothing, especially the bylaws, prohibits the organization's using the common other procedure whereby the membership elects the directors as a lump, and then the directors, themselves, elect the officers.

If that's the argument, then I think its refutation is irrefutable but laborious, except that it can be summarized with the likes of "Pshaw" or "Humbug."

It must be the end of a long day - I cannot determine if "If that's the argument, then I think its refutation is irrefutable but laborious" means that you think the argument could stand or not!

[Josh Martin]

It must be the end of a long day - I cannot determine if "If that's the argument, then I think its refutation is irrefutable but laborious" means that you think the argument could stand or not!

He's saying the argument would not stand, based upon the facts provided.