Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Election conflict with charges filed against candidate


WowIamtired

Recommended Posts

We have a situation where mail in election is taking place and ends on December 22, 2012. One of the presidential candidates has had charges filed against them, been formally notified of those charges, and their trial will be held shortly into the new year, before the new Board takes office.

We need to know if a person that has been formally charged with ethical violations can run for office?

If they can run, can we delay the election results until the hearing is completed? The new Board Members don't officially take office until January 15th. Our thoughts are if they are found guilty of the charges, do we even have to consider any votes for the person? Our by-laws don't state whether a person in the middle of a disciplinary investigation or let alone found guilty of ethical charges can even serve on the Board. Can a person found guilty of ethical violations hold an office?

If they can't run or they are found guilty, another question is due to privacy issues on the charges. Our by-laws don't say anything about membership being notified of the charges, but they are very clear we can't say anything about the hearing or the results of the hearing. How do we tell our membership the president position was won by default without violating our by-laws. Members are going to want to know what happened.

Thanks for your help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to know if a person that has been formally charged with ethical violations can run for office?

Yes.

If they can run, can we delay the election results until the hearing is completed?

Given that the voting is already underway and the voting is conducted by mail... I would say no, unless your rules provide otherwise.

The new Board Members don't officially take office until January 15th. Our thoughts are if they are found guilty of the charges, do we even have to consider any votes for the person?

You most definitely need to "consider the votes." Even if the member was ineligible (which it seems may not be the case), votes for him would be treated as illegal votes, which would not be credited toward any candidate, but would count toward the number of ballots cast for the purpose of determining a majority.

Our by-laws don't state whether a person in the middle of a disciplinary investigation or let alone found guilty of ethical charges can even serve on the Board.

Then they can serve. RONR places no restrictions on who may hold office - it leaves it up to the judgment of the voters. If your Bylaws are silent on this topic, then they are not prohibited from holding office.

Can a person found guilty of ethical violations hold an office?

Yes.

How do we tell our membership the president position was won by default without violating our by-laws. Members are going to want to know what happened.

Based on the facts presented, it appears that will not be an issue, since it seems the member will be eligible to hold office regardless of the outcome of his hearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a situation where mail in election is taking place and ends on December 22, 2012. One of the presidential candidates has had charges filed against them, been formally notified of those charges, and their trial will be held shortly into the new year, before the new Board takes office.

And suppose he is found innocent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the facts presented, it appears that will not be an issue, since it seems the member will be eligible to hold office regardless of the outcome of his hearing.

With the probable exception of the punishment being expulsion and membership being a requirement for holding office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If found guilty why can't the punishment just be be removal from office and or disqualification to hold office?

It certainly could be. I think Edgar is saying it is probable that the assembly's Bylaws require officers to be members, not commenting on what the probable punishment will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly could be. I think Edgar is saying it is probable that the assembly's Bylaws require officers to be members, not commenting on what the probable punishment will be.

Yes, thank you. I could have phrased it more clearly:

With :

  • the probable exception of membership being a requirement for holding office AND
  • the punishment being expulsion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...