BY LAW Violation discovered after minutes accepted

[Guest George]

After a vacant appointment was filled by the President, approved by the Executive Board, and accepted at the general Membership meeting a member challenged at the next month meeting that BY Law requirement of meeting attendance required prior to the appointment was not met and the appointment was in violation.

The members challenge brought forth is correct and indeed the appointee had not met the meeting requirement.

 

 

My question is : Did the  challenge come too late after being adopted by the General Membership or if indeed the appointment must be reversed and vacated based on the BY Law language that was overlooked.

 

Thank YOU,

 

George

[Josh Martin]

After a vacant appointment was filled by the President, approved by the Executive Board, and accepted at the general Membership meeting a member challenged at the next month meeting that BY Law requirement of meeting attendance required prior to the appointment was not met and the appointment was in violation.

The members challenge brought forth is correct and indeed the appointee had not met the meeting requirement.

My question is : Did the challenge come too late after being adopted by the General Membership or if indeed the appointment must be reversed and vacated based on the BY Law language that was overlooked.

No, the challenge is not too late. If the member was ineligible to serve in the position he was appointed to, this constitutes a continuing breach. The President's appointment and the subsequent approval by the board and general membership are all null and void.

The fact that the minutes have been approved (as this topic's title suggests) is irrelevant. Approving the minutes simply indicates that they are an accurate record of what happened, whether or not what happened was proper.

[Richard Brown]

If I'm understanding your post correctly, an objection has been raised that the member appointed to fill the vacancy is not qualified because he has not met some bylaw requirement regarding having attended a certain number of meetings prior to his appointment.

 

If that is indeed the situation, then his appointment/election is null and void because it conflicts with a requirement in the bylaws.  It constitutes a continuing breach which may be challenged at any time by a member raising a point of order.  This assumes, of course, that it can be proven that he has not met the requirement.

 

Edited to add:  In case someone wants a citation to RONR that the election can be challenged, here is the pertinent provision from page 445 of RONR:

 

"an election may be contested only by raising a point of order. The general rule is that such a point of order must be timely, as described on page 250, line 30 to page 251, line 2. If an election is disputed on the ground that a quorum was not present, the provisions on page 349, lines 21–28, apply. Other exceptions to the general timeliness requirement are those that come within the five categories listed on page 251, lines 9–23, in which cases a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected. For example:
    •    If an individual does not meet the qualifications for the post established in the bylaws, his or her election is tantamount to adoption of a main motion that conflicts with the bylaws."