Guest Mike Posted December 10, 2012 at 08:09 PM Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 at 08:09 PM Recently at a officers election meeting, a motion was made to suspend the bylaws, thus throwing any requirements to hold that office out the window. The motion wasn't liked but somehow passed a majority vote. Now my question is, is it for lack of better words "legal" to suspend the bylaws for officer elections if there is eligible candidates for those positions? Any help is greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g40 Posted December 10, 2012 at 08:15 PM Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 at 08:15 PM What your organization did was completely improper. It really does not matter whether there were eligible candidates or not. If you wanted/needed to change the bylaws, you should have followed the procedures in the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted December 10, 2012 at 08:18 PM Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 at 08:18 PM Recently at a officers election meeting, a motion was made to suspend the bylaws, thus throwing any requirements to hold that office out the window. The motion wasn't liked but somehow passed a majority vote.So then what happened? Did you hold elections? Was anyone elected that did not meet the qualifications set forth in the bylaws?A5SmXt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted December 10, 2012 at 08:30 PM Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 at 08:30 PM Yes, elections were still held. And people who originally did not meet the requirements, were elected into office over people who were qualified for the position set forth by the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 10, 2012 at 08:40 PM Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 at 08:40 PM Now my question is, is it for lack of better words "legal" to suspend the bylaws for officer elections if there is eligible candidates for those positions?It's illegal (and that's a fine word) to suspend the bylaws even if there weren't any eligible candidates.So you can tell the new "officers" that they weren't elected at all. And then give your president, and the rest of the members, a stern lecture on the gross impropriety of suspending the bylaws. You might ask them how they'd like it if the police knocked on their door and told them the Constitution was suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g40 Posted December 10, 2012 at 08:46 PM Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 at 08:46 PM It's illegal (and that's a fine word) to suspend the bylaws even if there weren't any eligible candidates.So you can tell the new "officers" that they weren't elected at all. And then give your president, and the rest of the members, a stern lecture on the gross impropriety of suspending the bylaws. You might ask them how they'd like it if the police knocked on their door and told them the Constitution was suspended.What your organization did (or thought they did) is similar to the US President or the US Congress just suspending the US Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted December 10, 2012 at 09:28 PM Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 at 09:28 PM Thanks for your help, I'm trying to explain this to those members but they are saying that majority vote over rules everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 11, 2012 at 02:22 AM Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 02:22 AM Thanks for your help, I'm trying to explain this to those members but they are saying that majority vote over rules everything else.Well, those members are wrong, and if asked, will not be able to cite anything in RONR to support their position. Saying something repeatedly or loudly does not make it so. And in this case it is definitely NOT so.The bylaws (such as qualifications for office) may not be suspended, not even by unanimous consent. And they may only be amended by following the requirements contained within them for their own amendment, which will be found near the end. Typically, this would require previous notice to the members, and a voting threshold substantially in excess of a majority.Anything adopted in violation of the bylaws is null and void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted December 11, 2012 at 05:54 AM Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 05:54 AM However, there is a simple work-around. The meeting should be briefly recessed. Then those who think that these people were legitimately elected go to the window, open it, step outside, and waft gently to the ground. Then they float back up, come back inside, the recess is concluded, and the meeting continues.The principle demonstrated is that when they show they can casually suspend the Bylaw of Gravity, then nobody will quibble about suspending the bylaws of an organization.captcha trial 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted December 11, 2012 at 02:02 PM Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 02:02 PM Thanks for your help, I'm trying to explain this to those members but they are saying that majority vote over rules everything else.Perhaps a simple RONR citation would help. "Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be suspended-no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may be - unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension, or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order as described on page 17, lines 22-25." RONR (11th ed), p. 263, ll. 1-7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_guest-Guest Posted December 11, 2012 at 06:14 PM Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 06:14 PM A similiar situation happened to my organization, but our bylaws does state that the bylaws may be suspended with a 2/3 vote of members in good standing present and voting. It also says that the Robert's rule of order is the parliamentary authority as long as it does not come into conflict with the bylaws of the organization. A member moved to suspend the bylaws for the purpose of election only, and it passed with a 2/3 vote. Therefore elections occured but the new officers has yet been sworn into office, which should happen immediately after elections.My question- is this something the members can do, as it does follow our organization's bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted December 11, 2012 at 06:36 PM Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 06:36 PM A similiar situation happened to my organization, but our bylaws does state that the bylaws may be suspended with a 2/3 vote of members in good standing present and voting. It also says that the Robert's rule of order is the parliamentary authority as long as it does not come into conflict with the bylaws of the organization. A member moved to suspend the bylaws for the purpose of election only, and it passed with a 2/3 vote. Therefore elections occured but the new officers has yet been sworn into office, which should happen immediately after elections.My question- is this something the members can do, as it does follow our organization's bylaws.First, please, guest-guest-guest, try another name. Just register on the website. I'm expecting we'll need some give-and-take on this discussion (so you'll not want to mess with the Guests's capcha code); guest-guest-guest is a little awkward, though I apologize if it's really your Christian name that you were given to honor your great-great-aunt Suzette Hereford-Guest and her daughter Henrietta Hereford-Lankchester-Guest and so you always use it on the Internet out of respect though it results in confusion for aspiring middlebrows like me who are still shamefully unfamiliar with the nuances of the nomenclature of your English noble consanguinity.Next. This question is, as you say, similar -- but this website works best if a question like this is posted as a new thread So please do.I'll say part of the reason for my suggestion and request is that your question is actually substantially different. ___________N. B. "Consanguinity" was a cheap dodge, I didn't remember the right word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:53 PM Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:53 PM First, please, guest-guest-guest, try another name. Just register on the website. I'm expecting we'll need some give-and-take on this discussion (so you'll not want to mess with the Guests's capcha code); guest-guest-guest is a little awkward, though I apologize if it's really your Christian name that you were given to honor your great-great-aunt Suzette Hereford-Guest and her daughter Henrietta Hereford-Lankchester-Guest and so you always use it on the Internet out of respect though it results in confusion for aspiring middlebrows like me who are still shamefully unfamiliar with the nuances of the nomenclature of your English noble consanguinity.Next. This question is, as you say, similar -- but this website works best if a question like this is posted as a new thread So please do.I'll say part of the reason for my suggestion and request is that your question is actually substantially different.___________N. B. "Consanguinity" was a cheap dodge, I didn't remember the right word.Do you get paid by the word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:58 PM Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:58 PM For all interested parties regarding Guest4's question, see this new post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.