elimination of two officers after approving minutes which elected them

[Guest marion w manion]

What is the status of two individuals who were elected by unanimous acclamation and so indicated in minutes which were approved without corrections and the new president then declares them unelected? It seems to me that approval of the minutes takes precedence over his subsequent action. Please advise.

[Rev Ed]

The President only has the authority granted to him/her by the By-laws.  Do the By-laws specifically allow him/her to judge whether or not these members were elected?  If not, they are still members of the Board.  And the approval of the Minutes do not make them elected, it is the election that made them Board members.  They became Board members when they were elected, not when the Minutes were approved.

[Edgar Guest]

If not, they are still members of the Board.

There's a board?

[Tom Coronite]

The President only has the authority granted to him/her by the By-laws.  Do the By-laws specifically allow him/her to judge whether or not these members were elected?  If not, they are still members of the Board.  

 

What if the reason the president declared they were not elected was some irregularity (e.g. they are ineligible for the position they were supposedly elected to, invalid meeting, some continuing breach, etc.) I'm not sure there's enough info here to offer such an opinion.

[Edgar Guest]

What if the reason the president declared they were not elected was some irregularity (e.g. they are ineligible for the position they were supposedly elected to, invalid meeting, some continuing breach, etc.) 

 

Such a determination would have to be made at a meeting (e.g. by raising a point of order). The president does not have the unilateral authority to invalidate an election (unless, as Rev Ed noted) the bylaws give him this unusual authority.

[Tom Coronite]

Absolutely!  I'm just not sure this didn't happen at a meeting with a point of order, as the original post is scarce with details.  It was more the "they are still members of the board" statement that I thought could be premature.

[Edgar Guest]

It was more the "they are still members of the board" statement that I thought could be premature.

 

Especially since there's no mention of a board in the original post.

[Rev Ed]

Especially since there's no mention of a board in the original post.

 

Edgar, when I re-read the post, I did see how much information is missing.  However, whether the issue is with the election to the Board, the election to a Committee, the election to membership, or some other election, the answer is the same:  The President cannot unilaterally declare the two people 'unelected.'

[Richard Brown]

. . . . However, whether the issue is with the election to the Board, the election to a Committee, the election to membership, or some other election, the answer is the same:  The President cannot unilaterally declare the two people 'unelected.'

 

Well, let's talk about that.  If the two people who were elected do not meet the qualifications for office and someone raises a point of order that their election is void, doesn't the president have to rule on the point of order?  It's a violation of the bylaws and a continuing breach, isn't it, which can be raised at any time?  Anc can't the president raise the issue himself?

 

If the two people really don't meet the qualifications, shouldn't he rule the point of order well taken and declare the election void?   It would be then up to someone to appeal from the decision of the chair, if so desired, in order to let the assembly rule on the matter.

[Edgar Guest]

However, whether the issue is with the election to the Board, the election to a Committee, the election to membership, or some other election, the answer is the same:  The President cannot unilaterally declare the two people 'unelected.'

 

Yes. All we know is that the election was to an office.

[Rev Ed]

Well, let's talk about that.  If the two people who were elected do not meet the qualifications for office and someone raises a point of order that their election is void, doesn't the president have to rule on the point of order?  It's a violation of the bylaws and a continuing breach, isn't it, which can be raised at any time?  Anc can't the president raise the issue himself?

 

If the two people really don't meet the qualifications, shouldn't he rule the point of order well taken and declare the election void?   It would be then up to someone to appeal from the decision of the chair, if so desired, in order to let the assembly rule on the matter.

 

Yes, but based on the original post, it sounds like the President unilaterally declared the two people as being unelected.  The President has to make a ruling at a meeting, supported by fact.  But not a unilateral decision.

 

Of course, the information contained in the original post could be expanded on to provide more clear information as to what happened, so we cna give a more concrete answer.