Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

officer elections conducted in violation of bylaws


Guest Todd

Recommended Posts

I belong to the state board of statewide volunteer organization. We hold annual elections for officers, IAW with our bylaws.

Our bylaws require that only those who have been members of the organization for at least 30 days are eligible to vote for officers.

In December 2010, our election took place. It was contested, with 2 factions battling for control; therefore, 2 individuals were nominated for president (and the other board positions as well).

On the day of the election, one side brought 15 outsiders to the meeting. These outsiders joined the local unit on the spot and were permitted to vote for the office of President, and that decided the outcome, as this side won the election by a mere 2 votes. The vote totals were similar for each of the other offices. (Important note: To their chagrin, the losing side did not know at that time that allowing these outsiders to vote constituted a bylaws violation.) The meeting was adjourned, and the newly elected officers assumed their positions and ran the unit for the past year.

During the course of the past year, our unit passed new bylaws, affecting how our officer elections are to be conducted. In order for our bylaws to go in effect, however, they must by approved by the statewide organization. Our bylaws were never submitted to the statewide organization, so they were never approved.

Our unit conducted our annual officer elections again in December 2011. They were conducted IAW the new - unapproved - bylaws, which have heavy restrictions on who is allowed to vote and who is allowed to be nominated for ofifce, resulting in several people being excluded from voting or being nominated. New officers were elected, and these officers have assumed their postions and are running the unit.

So here are my questions: Can we invalidate the Dec. 2011 election, and, if so, how do we go about it?

And, can we also invalidate the Dec. 2010 election?

Our contention is that the Dec. 2011 election violated the bylaws and is therefore null and void. The Dec. 2010 election also violated the bylaws and is null and void and that the unit has not had legitimate officer elections since Dec. 2009.

We would like the current officers, elected in violation of the bylaws, tossed out and for the statewide organization to come in and supervise a fair election IAW our bylaws.

Thank you for your expertise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we invalidate the Dec. 2011 election, and, if so, how do we go about it?

Maybe. It depends on whether the number of people who were improperly excluded could have affected the result. If so, then the election is null and void. The chair can make a ruling to this effect at his own initiative at the next meeting of the general membership, or a member may raise a Point of Order. If the chair does not make the ruling on his own initiative and rules unfavorably on the Point of Order, a member may Appeal from the decision of the chair. A majority vote is required to overturn the chair's ruling.

If the number of people who were improperly excluded from voting could not have affected the result, the election stands.

And, can we also invalidate the Dec. 2010 election?

No. The breach ended with the term of office.

Our contention is that the Dec. 2011 election violated the bylaws and is therefore null and void.

That may be the case. It's impossible to tell based solely on the facts presented. From what you've said, it would be void if the number of people who were improperly excluded from voting could have affected the result.

The Dec. 2010 election also violated the bylaws and is null and void

This is true, but the breach ended with the term of office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the 2010 and 2011 elections were both invalid, could that be a continuous breach?

At the risk of stepping in on Josh's party here, the first two of his responses above address this question. The 2010 breach was "healed" with the 2011 election. Whatever continuous breach may have resulted from the 2010 election went away with the 2011 election.

Now, whether there is a continuing breach resulting from the 2011 election depends on "whether the number of people who were improperly excluded (from voting) could have affected the result." If so, then yes, the breach continues and can be addresses at any time in the future through a Point of Order (appealed if necessary).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I'm sure you're right, but I have to ask. If the 2010 and 2011 elections were both invalid, could that be a continuous breach?

You can't lump the two elections together -- each must be considered individually.

Mr. Martin's point about the 2010 election was that the continuing breach (and it does sound as though there was one, due to the votes of ineligible voters affecting the outcome) came to an end with the end of the term of office of those elected. Now, if you have an arrangement with overlapping two-year terms (as some organizations do), and if some of the people elected in 2010 are now in office for the second year of their term, then those specific elections could still be challenged. However, if you conduct an election for all positions every year, the possible breach created by the 2010 election is no longer continuing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, if you conduct an election for all positions every year, the possible breach created by the 2010 election is no longer continuing.

You make a good point about the overlapping terms, which we don't know about yet from Guest_Todd. Your comment above now makes me also wonder about the possibility (remote though it may be) that an officer elected in 2010 for which the election for his office was incomplete in 2011, and with the term of office language including "and/or until" causes him to still be in office pending completion of the election, perhaps that election (in 2010) is still a continuing breach. I'm probably hearing zebra hooves here, but it's a possibility I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe. It depends on whether the number of people who were improperly excluded could have affected the result. If so, then the election is null and void. The chair can make a ruling to this effect at his own initiative at the next meeting of the general membership, or a member may raise a Point of Order. If the chair does not make the ruling on his own initiative and rules unfavorably on the Point of Order, a member may Appeal from the decision of the chair. A majority vote is required to overturn the chair's ruling.

If the number of people who were improperly excluded from voting could not have affected the result, the election stands.

...

...

Our contention is that the Dec. 2011 election violated the bylaws and is therefore null and void. The Dec. 2010 election also violated the bylaws and is null and void and that the unit has not had legitimate officer elections since Dec. 2009.

...

The fact that various aspects of the Dec. 2011 election process may have violated the bylaws is not sufficient grounds to raise a point of order about the election outcome after the fact (i.e. most such violations will not render the election null and void). For example, the fact that eligible candidates may not have been allowed to run (which you suggested in your post) would not constitute a continuing breach. Read Mr. Martin's response again (especially the bolded part quoted above).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...