Ineligible Nominee - election complete

[dougwuttke]

I'm looking for some guidance on a what I believe to be a simple issue. A nominee in an election was ruled to be ineligible following the close of ballots and announcement of winners. This individual did win a seat and must relinquish the seat. From the research I've done, it appears that a new election must be held rather than simply awarding the seat to the individual with the next most votes. Can someone verify this, and if correct, indicate where it may be found within RONR?

Thanks!

[Larry Cisar]

I'm looking for some guidance on a what I believe to be a simple issue. A nominee in an election was ruled to be ineligible following the close of ballots and announcement of winners. This individual did win a seat and must relinquish the seat. From the research I've done, it appears that a new election must be held rather than simply awarding the seat to the individual with the next most votes. Can someone verify this, and if correct, indicate where it may be found within RONR?

Thanks!

First, is the person ineligible to hold the office? Check the bylaws carefully. If not and the second person had a majority vote such as in elect 4 where more than 4 can have a majority of the votes, then the next person is elected. If the next person did not have a majority, you would have an incomplete election and need to vote again.

But you also have to check to see if the election of the ineligible nominee violated one of the conditions on page 244. If not and a point of order was not raised immediately after the election, it is to late.

So you have a lot checking to do to see if this person is in office or not.

[dougwuttke]

First, is the person ineligible to hold the office? Check the bylaws carefully. If not and the second person had a majority vote such as in elect 4 where more than 4 can have a majority of the votes, then the next person is elected. If the next person did not have a majority, you would have an incomplete election and need to vote again.

But you also have to check to see if the election of the ineligible nominee violated one of the conditions on page 244. If not and a point of order was not raised immediately after the election, it is to late.

So you have a lot checking to do to see if this person is in office or not.

Thanks for your comments Larry. Your assumptions are correct in that the membership was voting to elect four seats where they could vote for up to four individuals. It is readily apparent that the individual in question is ineligible. Something was overlooked during the nomination process that should have been caught. So if I understand correctly, your opinion is that the vacancy should be filled by the individual with the 5th most votes. Thanks again.

[Sean Hunt]

Thanks for your comments Larry. Your assumptions are correct in that the membership was voting to elect four seats where they could vote for up to four individuals. It is readily apparent that the individual in question is ineligible. Something was overlooked during the nomination process that should have been caught. So if I understand correctly, your opinion is that the vacancy should be filled by the individual with the 5th most votes. Thanks again.

Only if that 5th person also had a majority. If he did not, then he was not elected since a majority is required for anyone to be elected. If he did not have such a majority, then the election was not finished and, at the next opportunity, the assembly will have to complete the election by electing someone to the final seat.

To head a potential question off at the pass, if it so happens that the rules were incorrectly applied and one or more other candidates were elected with less than a majority, the election stands since a Point of Order was not called regarding the violation in a timely manner (whereas, for the case of someone ineligible by the bylaws, electing that person would violate the bylaws and thus is completely null and void).

EDIT: And if Larry Cisar's point about a person potentially being nominated but not elected is valid, then the initial election stands, as there is generally no requirement that the person elected have been nominated, unless your bylaws state otherwise.

[Larry Cisar]

Thanks for your comments Larry. Your assumptions are correct in that the membership was voting to elect four seats where they could vote for up to four individuals. It is readily apparent that the individual in question is ineligible. Something was overlooked during the nomination process that should have been caught. So if I understand correctly, your opinion is that the vacancy should be filled by the individual with the 5th most votes. Thanks again.

If your bylaws say that to be nominated you must be a member for X years and the member was not a member for X years, nothing is violated by electing the person and the election would stand. If your bylaws say that to hold office you need to be a member for X years, then electing a person with less than X years as a member violates the bylaws and the person is not elected. What is your actual case?

[dougwuttke]

Our case is such that the by laws state that this individual can only serve two terms of office and then must stand down if someone else accepts a nomination for the position. She served two terms, was elected to a third, and only after the results were announced, verified, etc. at a general meeting, was the point raised that she was ineligible to serve. Now I'm stuck trying to wade through the correct method to move forward. Thanks folks...

the closest example I can find for the situation is found at this link:

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/8171470.WANSTEAD__By_election_to_be_called_after_councillor_found_to_be_ineligible/

[Sean Hunt]

Our case is such that the by laws state that this individual can only serve two terms of office and then must stand down if someone else accepts a nomination for the position. She served two terms, was elected to a third, and only after the results were announced, verified, etc. at a general meeting, was the point raised that she was ineligible to serve. Now I'm stuck trying to wade through the correct method to move forward. Thanks folks...

the closest example I can find for the situation is found at this link:

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/8171470.WANSTEAD__By_election_to_be_called_after_councillor_found_to_be_ineligible/

Public elections are very different from parliamentary procedure because they take place outside of a meeting context. The addition of political parties makes it more complicated. It's not really a good idea to extrapolate much from public elections into parliamentary procedure.

This forum is not about the interpreting the bylaws, but yours sound murky at best. At heart is the critical distinction between whether that person is barred only from being nominated or from being elected. The authority over the interpretation of the bylaws is your general meeting, so the best approach is to raise a Point of Order about it at the next regular meeting or, if you can't wait that long and your bylaws allow it, at a special meeting called for this purpose. The chair can rule on the Point of Order and the ruling could be subject to an Appeal, or the Point of Order could be submitted directly to the assembly for debate. It's important to try to focus the debate on the interpretation of the rules and not over the politics of whether the candidate is a good choice or not - the situation must be carefully explained so that members understand that the difference between the two cases, and what they would be ruling on. Once the ruling is made by the assembly (or not Appealed), it stands.

One piece of advice I would add is that it is possible, given what you've said, that the bylaws are such that the person is eligible re-election but is forbidden from accepting the position under certain circumstances. If this is the case, then your assembly would have to decide how to interpret this - as a procedural rule, such that the acceptance of the position is invalid, or as a rule of enforcement, such that it was valid but the member could face sanction for violating the rule.

If the meeting has a possibility of completing the election, you should probably also make sure that all the members are aware of this since elections may get more attendance than usual.

[Rob Elsman]

Our case is such that the by laws state that this individual can only serve two terms of office and then must stand down if someone else accepts a nomination for the position. She served two terms, was elected to a third, and only after the results were announced, verified, etc. at a general meeting, was the point raised that she was ineligible to serve. Now I'm stuck trying to wade through the correct method to move forward. Thanks folks...

the closest example I can find for the situation is found at this link:

http://www.guardian-..._be_ineligible/

I think it is going to be nearly impossible to nail down the correct answer, since all of your posts are written mostly in the passive voice without making clear who are the agents of the verbs.