illegal election?

[Guest Allen]

Our church had their annual meeting yesterday, where officers are elected.  The board, within the last few months, rewrote the bylaws to be very board-friendly, with no power to the congregation, in my opinion. The congregation has never been allowed to vote on the bylaws, so whenever the board changes substantially, the first thing they do is change the bylaws.  In the current bylaws, they put that all potential candidates had to fill out a questionnaire, which would be submitted to the board, and the board could choose to deny them candidacy. The purpose of this is so that they can have "peaceful" board meetings.  I've been told that this is "legal", if it's in the bylaws, even though, to me, it violates one of the basic principles of Parliamentary Procedure - the right to choose the representatives of your choice.  Anyway, each position had only one nominee.  At the "election", the Vice-President simply introduced the new board, with no balloting being done.  (Our bylaws do NOT speak to election by acclamation.)  The new President stated that voting was unnecessary, since the bylaws call for election by a plurality vote, so, since there was only one person for each office, one vote would get them elected.  This seems just wrong to me.  Is there anything that can be done about this situation?  Is it an illegal election because there was no vote?  Even with only one candidate, people should be allowed to either turn in a blank "no vote" ballot, which would could against the candidate, shouldn't they?  There is also nothing in the bylaws about nominations from the floor or write-in votes, but the board has stated that, since they have to approve all candidates as per the bylaws, that supersedes either of those things.  They also do not have a stated quorum for general meetings, which I guess means that however many show up are the voting population.  Any comments or suggestions?

[Edgar Guest]

Any comments or suggestions?

 

Do your bylaws give your board the authority to amend the bylaws?

[Guest Allen]

Yes.  The old one did, and the new ones do.

[Josh Martin]

In the current bylaws, they put that all potential candidates had to fill out a questionnaire, which would be submitted to the board, and the board could choose to deny them candidacy. The purpose of this is so that they can have "peaceful" board meetings.  I've been told that this is "legal", if it's in the bylaws, even though, to me, it violates one of the basic principles of Parliamentary Procedure - the right to choose the representatives of your choice. 

 

Yes, such a rule is valid if it is in the bylaws, unless it conflicts with some higher-level rule.

 

"Within this framework under the general parliamentary law, an assembly or society is free to adopt any rules it may wish (even rules deviating from parliamentary law) provided that, in the procedure of adopting them, it conforms to parliamentary law or its own existing rules. The only limitations upon the rules that such a body can thus adopt might arise from the rules of a parent body (as those of a national society restricting its state or local branches), or from national, state, or local law affecting the particular type of organization." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 10)

 

At the "election", the Vice-President simply introduced the new board, with no balloting being done.  (Our bylaws do NOT speak to election by acclamation.)  The new President stated that voting was unnecessary, since the bylaws call for election by a plurality vote, so, since there was only one person for each office, one vote would get them elected.  This seems just wrong to me.

 

The President is essentially correct, but a ballot vote must nonetheless be taken if required by the bylaws.

 

Is there anything that can be done about this situation?  Is it an illegal election because there was no vote?

 

Yes. If the bylaws require a ballot vote and do not provide an exception for when there is only one candidate, a ballot vote must be taken. Failure to do so causes a continuing breach, and a Point of Order that the election is invalid may be raised at any time during the elected officers' term of office. Since there appears to be no opportunity to vote on anyone but board-approved candidates, however, I don't know if there's much point.

 

Even with only one candidate, people should be allowed to either turn in a blank "no vote" ballot, which would could against the candidate, shouldn't they?

 

No. A blank or "no vote" is treated as an abstention and has no effect on the election. You have to vote for a person.

 

There is also nothing in the bylaws about nominations from the floor or write-in votes, but the board has stated that, since they have to approve all candidates as per the bylaws, that supersedes either of those things.

 

That may well be a reasonable interpretation of that rule, and I'm afraid that appears to be the definitive interpretation. If the board has the power to amend the bylaws, it also has the power to interpret them.

 

They also do not have a stated quorum for general meetings, which I guess means that however many show up are the voting population. 

 

Possibly. The default quorum depends on a few things, such as how well-defined the membership is. "In organizations such as many churches or some societies in which there are no required or effective annual dues and the register of members is not generally reliable as a list of the bona-fide members, the quorum at any regular or properly called meeting consists of those who attend." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 346) On the other hand, if you actually know how many members the church has, then the quorum is a majority of the members if the bylaws are silent.

 

Any comments or suggestions?

 

When a board has the power to amend the bylaws, my usual advice to the membership is to elect board members who are willing to amend the bylaws to give the membership this power, before the board realizes just how much power it has. Since the board has granted itself veto power over candidates, I think you may be past that point. I think your options now are to deal with it or find a new church.