Violation of bylaws on nomination notice less than required

[Guest hohoho123]

The Board have given less than the required notice period of 30 days for nominees to submit their nomination form, only 12 days between the notice and the nomination deadline and the secretary declared that this was a violation of the constitution and will call this election void, he will not accept any nominations, therefore, all re-tire directors are automatically re-elected.

Are there ways to ratify this nomination or election and is the violation of constitution really makes the election completely void? If this is a conspiracy that the Board purposely send out something to violate the bye-laws so that the existing re-tire directors could continue their terms?

[David A Foulkes]

.... the secretary declared that this was a violation of the constitution ... will call this election void...will not accept any nominations... all re-tire directors are automatically re-elected.

Well, I don't believe it's the secretary's place to rule on a violation of the constitution, void elections, deny nominations, or declare incumbent officers re-elected by default of the foregoing. You might ask him (or her) where the unilateral authority to do all this is granted to him?

But it clearly sounds like you have some customized rules that govern how nominations are handled that deviate from the norm as presented by RONR. As such, your constitution and bylaws supercede RONR and you must follow them. Without seeing them in their entirety (and please don't post them here), it would be difficult to tell you what to do.

The expectation, based on RONR, is that the election meeting would still be held as scheduled, and any previously nominated candidates (via a nominating committee, for example) would be presented to the voting membership. The floor would be open for further nominations by the members at that time, ballots would be handed out, and members would also be able to write-in alternate choices from those who have been nominated. Majority vote for each office wins. Current office holders are not "automatically re-elected", although barring any term limits imposed by your rules, nothing would prevent any of them from being re-elected if they received enough votes.

I suspect a thorough reading of your consititution and bylaws is needed to determine what is and what isn't required procedure, and what authority lies where. It surely sounds like something isn't being handled correctly.

[rthib]

From RONR, remember the membership is the final say on what bylaws mean.

Secretaries, Presidents, Chairs don't get to make unilateral decisions.

Nominations were made, at meeting where election is to be held, secretary can raise bylaw issue at that time. Chair can either uphold and members can challenge.

The membership has the final word.

But if you understanding of bylaws is correct, then her belief may be correct.

But if this were me, you have a case of a board failing to do its duty and the trying to remain in office.

If I were a member, the following motion I would make after the nominations being held invalid is to remove the board for failure to do its duty.

Otherwise you have set up a condition where you will have a board for life.

I would look and see what your bylaws say about nominations.

Does it say current officeholders are automatically nominated?

Does it state terms of office or say that they hold office until a new person is elected?

If no to those two, what make anyone think that current officeholders continue?

For instance if it say that board members serve for one year and you have no election,

I would suggest to the members that you have no board as current term as ended and no one was elected.

[Josh Martin]

Are there ways to ratify this nomination or election and is the violation of constitution really makes the election completely void?

I'm not sure whether there is a way to ratify the nominations. Your organization will have to interpret its own rules on that one.

In any event, it is entirely possible to hold an election without any nominations. You would just have all members cast "write-in" votes. So even if the nominations are void, that doesn't mean the election is void.

If this is a conspiracy that the Board purposely send out something to violate the bye-laws so that the existing re-tire directors could continue their terms?

If it is a conspiracy, it won't be a very effective one if the members know what they're doing. It is entirely possible to conduct an election without nominations.