Existing board members not being allowed to vote if they are running for office again

[Guest official]

Our elections are coming up and currently our bylaws say that members of the executive board may not vote if they are seeking re-election or running for another position on the board. General members running for the board may vote. This seems so completely against a persons right to vote in an election. I tried to find it in Roberts Rules...but could someone help guide me? Is there any way to get the bylaws ammended within the same meeting?

We have the amendment of the bylaws on our next agenda - but not the specifics. Our bylaws currently say:

These bylaws may be amended at any meeting of the members, at which a quorum is present, by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members attending and voting at the General Business meeting, provided notice of the proposed amendment has been given at the previous meeting and has been published in a notice or newsletter approved by the Executive Board.

Parliamentorian Authority states:

Robert’s Rules of Order Revised shall be guidelines to govern this organization in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not in conflict with these bylaws. The Vice-President shall act as the parliamentarian using Robert’s Rules of Order Revised as appointed by the Executive Board.

[Guest Edgar]

Our elections are coming up and currently our bylaws say that members of the executive board may not vote if they are seeking re-election or running for another position on the board. General members running for the board may vote. This seems so completely against a persons right to vote in an election.

Unless and until they're changed (i.e. amended), you have to follow your current bylaws, however unfair they may seem.

And though you didn't quote your bylaws exactly (and this is not the place to do so!), you might want to think about what it means for someone to "seek" or "run for" an office. What if a current board member has done nothing to indicate that he wants to remain on the board but someone else nominates him for re-election?

By the way, this situation seems reminiscent of another recent topic but, at the moment, I'm unable to locate it.

[Chris Harrison]

You have to follow the amendment provisions in the bylaws in order to validly amend them. So if notice wasn't given at the previous meeting and said notice wasn't published in a notice or newsletter approved by the Board for the next meeting then you all are out of luck. While I agree that the Board members being disenfranchised if they are running for election isn't fair you all for some reason put that rule in your bylaws and are now stuck with it until they can be validly amended.

[Guest official]

I saw in the 11th Edition that items 56 & 57 call out the below. Doesn't this qualify a violation of a member's right to vote? Wouldn't it make the line stating executive members aren't allowed to vote (they were nominated by others) null and void? Could a motion be made to correct this when we are to follow RONR?

1. Identifies when a violation of a member's right to vote causes an adopted motion to be null and void [252-253].
   
2. Establishes that an Appeal is undebatable when an undebatable question is involved in the appeal, even when the undebatable question is not immediately pending when the appeal is taken [257].
   

[David A Foulkes]

I saw in the 11th Edition that items 56 & 57 call out the below. Doesn't this qualify a violation of a member's right to vote? Wouldn't it make the line stating executive members aren't allowed to vote (they were nominated by others) null and void?

However, your bylaws supersede RONR, and they can include language (however ill-advised) that restricts a member's right to vote. That's what the "in which they are not in conflict with these bylaws" means.

Could a motion be made to correct this when we are to follow RONR?

A "regular" motion wouldn't do it. You will need to amend your bylaws by following the procedure set forth in the bylaws for amendment.

[Trina]

The bylaws supersede what is said in the parliamentary authority (RONR). So, since you have language in the bylaws disenfranchising some of your members, those members are disenfranchised. You can't overrule the bylaws based on language in the parliamentary authority. And (you didn't ask this, but the idea may come up) you can't suspend the unfair bylaw, even by unanimous consent.

[Guest Edgar]

By the way, this situation seems reminiscent of another recent topic but, at the moment, I'm unable to locate it.

Here's the post I was thinking of.

I guess the moral of the story is that no matter how ill-conceived your bylaws may be, you have to follow them until you can properly amend them.