Removal of ineligible officer

[Guest Mary Kolencik]

I read this thread and have some questions:

Here are the details:

1. a club's constitution requires that to be nominated for an office, the club member must be in good standing

2. a club member is in good standing if the club member has attended 6 meetings in the past year

3. if there are two nominees for the office of president, the highest vote is president and the other is vice president. There were only 2 nominees in the election in question.

4. a member who had only attended 4 meetings and was thus not in good standing was nominated and elected to the office of president, let's call her Jan. Jack also ran, but came in 2nd and so was elected to VP, he has been a member in good standing for several years.

It has been several meetings since the election, and now a club member wishes to challenge Jan's election. Jan has now been to more than 6 meetings in the prior year. My read of the above thread is that the election may be declared invalid even though Jan is now eligible.

Shmuel Gerber, on 09 December 2011 - 01:34 PM, said: "If the original election was actually a violation of the bylaws, then it may be declared invalid "at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 445)."

My questions:

1. how does a club member go about challenging this election? let's say it is me doing the challenging. At the start of the next meeting, what do I do? I'm guessing I raise a point of order, but then what? Do I make a motion to void the election and have the membership vote on it?

2. if we void the election, does that also void Jack for the office of VP? This is not a bad thing, because Jack would then just run for Pres again, but we need to know if his election was also invalid so that we know who then is next in the line of succession to run the remainder of the meeting and conduct the new election. It would be the secretary if Jack is not the VP, the secretary runs the meetings when neither the P or VP are present.

I appreciate any help! I really need to know how to proceed.

[Gary c Tesser]

I'll stab at #1. Yes, raise a point of order. The chair rules whether there has indeed been a violation (your point being "well taken," in our 18th-century parliamentary parlance) or not. Assume that he declares the point well-taken: he should throw out the election on his own (p. 48, item #3 on line 25; stellar example on the generally underappreciated p. 121, top). I forget whether the necessary follow-up election can be held on the spot, or if notice is required.

I'm not stabbing at #2 because I have no idea, except to offer that probably Jan can run for president now, too.

[Josh Martin]

1. a club's constitution requires that to be nominated for an office, the club member must be in good standing

2. a club member is in good standing if the club member has attended 6 meetings in the past year

3. if there are two nominees for the office of president, the highest vote is president and the other is vice president. There were only 2 nominees in the election in question.

Are items 2 and 3 also in your Constitution or Bylaws? I'll assume they are for now, based on context, but if not then we have a problem.

It has been several meetings since the election, and now a club member wishes to challenge Jan's election. Jan has now been to more than 6 meetings in the prior year. My read of the above thread is that the election may be declared invalid even though Jan is now eligible.

Shmuel Gerber, on 09 December 2011 - 01:34 PM, said: "If the original election was actually a violation of the bylaws, then it may be declared invalid "at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 445)."

Yes, that is my understanding as well, based on the facts presented.

1. how does a club member go about challenging this election? let's say it is me doing the challenging. At the start of the next meeting, what do I do? I'm guessing I raise a point of order, but then what? Do I make a motion to void the election and have the membership vote on it?

You would raise a Point of Order that the election is null and void, and the chair will rule on the point. If you disagree with the chair's ruling, you may Appeal the decision, which will put it in the hands of the assembly.

2. if we void the election, does that also void Jack for the office of VP?

I'm not really sure. Your customized rule on how members run for President and VP complicates things, so I think this is ultimately a question of Bylaws interpretation that the chair (and possibly the assembly, if the ruling is appealed) will have to decide.

This is not a bad thing, because Jack would then just run for Pres again, but we need to know if his election was also invalid so that we know who then is next in the line of succession to run the remainder of the meeting and conduct the new election. It would be the secretary if Jack is not the VP, the secretary runs the meetings when neither the P or VP are present.

Well, actually if you have no President or VP, then the Secretary would only conduct the meeting for the time it takes to elect a Chairman Pro Tempore, so far as RONR is concerned, but it's possible your rules provide otherwise.

I forget whether the necessary follow-up election can be held on the spot, or if notice is required.

I think in this case it could be held on the spot, since this would technically be an incomplete election.

[Guest Mary Kolencik]

I'll stab at #1. Yes, raise a point of order. The chair rules whether there has indeed been a violation (your point being "well taken," in our 18th-century parliamentary parlance) or not. Assume that he declares the point well-taken: he should throw out the election on his own (p. 48, item #3 on line 25; stellar example on the generally underappreciated p. 121, top).

Let's assume that since the chair is the person I am trying to throw out that the chair does not declare the point well-taken and that she denies my point of order. I would then appeal to the membership, right? Is there special wording for that?

Since posting this I've been reading the forums for other info, and I see this isn't the first time something like this has come up. One of the points made in another thread was that since the membership elected the person I would be trying to remove, I might not be successful in getting an appeal to pass. Good point, which is why I would make sure that some of the members that were not present for the original election are present when I challenge it. I would not do this without being sure that I have a majority of support from the membership to succeed. Just in case someone brings up this point.

Jan could run for president again, however with more members present the election results would be different. The only way such a new person got elected in the first place was that attendence was low at the meeting where she was elected. She would not be re-elected with as few as 2 or 3 more members in attendance. Otherwise, I wouldn't be bothering to challenge the election.

[Josh Martin]

Let's assume that since the chair is the person I am trying to throw out that the chair does not declare the point well-taken and that she denies my point of order. I would then appeal to the membership, right? Is there special wording for that?

Yes. The wording is "I appeal from the decision of the chair." See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 255-260 for more information on an Appeal.

[Guest Mary Kolencik]

Josh thank you! You answered my concerns and thanks to you and Gary I think I know how to proceed.

Yes, the constraints I mentioned are in the by-laws.

I really appreciate the help!!!

[J. J.]

If the bylaws refer to nominations and not to the eligibility to be elected, there may be no violation.

[Gary c Tesser]

JJ's new hairstylist is a genius.

[Gary Novosielski]

3. if there are two nominees for the office of president, the highest vote is president and the other is vice president. There were only 2 nominees in the election in question.

That rule is against the spirit and letter of RONR in several respects, so you'll need to dig yourself out of that particular hole yourself.

[Guest Edgar]

If the bylaws refer to nominations and to the eligibility to be elected, there may be no violation.

Mightn't there be a missing "not" in there somewhere?

[J. J.]

Mightn't there be a missing "not" in there somewhere?

Yes, I shall add it.

[Josh Martin]

If the bylaws refer to nominations and not to the eligibility to be elected, there may be no violation.

Yes, and that's something the assembly can decide when interpreting its Bylaws.

[J. J.]

Yes, and that's something the assembly can decide when interpreting its Bylaws.

I'm not certain it would be. A phrase "Nominees shall ..." have certain attributes, means that nominees shall have those attributes. It doesn't say anything about the qualifications of officers.

[Josh Martin]

I'm not certain it would be. A phrase "Nominees shall ..." have certain attributes, means that nominees shall have those attributes. It doesn't say anything about the qualifications of officers.

Well, I'll concede that it is possible that the Bylaws are unambiguous on this subject. The society will need to look at the Bylaws in their entirety, and if there is ambiguity, then the society will need to interpret its Bylaws, preferably with assistance from RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591. Since we only have a brief paraphrase of the Bylaws in question, we cannot definitively say whether the Bylaws are ambiguous on this subject or, if so, how they should be interpreted.