Decapitation of leadership

[Josh Martin]

This, then appears to be a serious defect in Robert's Rules. If there is no specification that the Nominating Committee vet its nominees or that there are some instances where the Nominating Committee vets the nominees and other instances where it does not, elections can (and will occur) with some nominations (those from the Nominating Committee) vetted and others, those from the floor, being unvetted and open to challenge and forced to do  a post-facto vetting. If someone who has some inobvious disqualification wishes to slip past the vetting process, they have only to arrange to be nominated from the floor. Moreover, to give the Nominating Committee the power to inquire into candidates' past places an enormous amount of easily abused power in their hands. It would be very easy, particularly in a larger assembly, for a Nominating Committee to ignore disqualifications for one favored candidate and no one would notice. There must be a better way of doing this.

A Point of Order can still be raised at the time a nomination is made from the floor, which is sufficient for most societies. Unless the rules for eligibility are excessively complicated, there should not be a need for a committee to vet all nominees. If this is needed, the society can certainly put something in place.

[Gary Novosielski]

After I stepped down, however, a grievance was filed (confidentiality is assured in our process), by someone or some ones, against our past nominating committee asking that ALL the officers be disqualified from serving further based on my disability under the grounds that all the officers were therefore invalidly elected. The disability, pointedly, was solely mine. The nominating committee refused to defend itself and stipulated that the grievance was correct, our Review Committee (the grievance committee) ruled the officer elections invalid, and the entire leadership was thereby decapitated at one fell swoop. 

 

We have no one to take the lead role in our Executive Committee since all other leaders elected under that election could, at  a later date, be ruled improperly elected. I cannot get two people to publicly call a meeting. The Executive Committee, being unwilling to meet (I cannot find even two members even willing to call a meeting), everyone is hunkered down or in silos) cannot call new elections or overrule the Review Committee or even call a general meeting.

Well, the logic behind that decision is patently absurd for any number of reasons.  First of all, the nominating committee no longer exists, and once the election is complete defects in the nominating process would not disqualify anyone.

 

It looks to me as if this Review Committee has some pretty extraordinary powers.  I hope they're all spelled out in the bylaws, or they do not actually exist.

 

Your best bet at this point is to have the requisite number of members call a general membership meeting and sort all this out.  I hope there's a provision in your bylaws that would allow that.  The first thing I'd do after getting the elections sorted out would be to abolish the Review Committee.

[Guest Woboot100]

Then the officers which the Review Committee claimed to remove remain in office.

Well, it all depends on what actually happens at the next meeting of the society. In my view, the officers should ignore the delusional statements by the Review Committee and should continue to serve in their positions, and so the Vice President and Secretary should serve at the meeting. Then it would be one of the committee's members or supporters who would raise a Point of Order that the election of all the officers is invalid, followed by an Appeal if necessary.

Keep in mind that we're not talking about a decision of the assembly or a ruling by the assembly's chairman. A subordinate committee presumed the authority to invalidate an action by its parent assembly, with no authority in the bylaws to do this. Such statements have no authority - it is the assembly's decision to elect these officers which is presumed to be valid until the assembly has determined otherwise.

If, for some reason, the officers and the assembly continue to act under the impression that the officers are removed, then yes, I suppose a Chairman Pro Tempore and Secretary Pro Tempore would need to be elected. It would then be one of the officers or their supporters who would raise a Point of Order, followed by an Appeal if necessary, that the election of the officers (other than the President) are valid, and that the Review Committee has no authority to decide otherwise. I do not think a motion to overrule or rescind the Review Committee's action would be proper, since this would imply that the Review Committee had the authority to take the action it did.

Either way, I hope that after all is said and done, the assembly will correctly conclude that the President's ineligibility has no validity on the elections of the other officers and that the Review Committee has no authority to invalidate an election conducted by the membership. The assembly can then proceed to complete the incomplete election for President and replace most or all of the Review Committee's members for grossly overstepping their bounds and causing a huge mess.

After this long and torturous meander, our Grievance Committee (which is our formal committee of appeals) has just ruled that I was never actually elected and therefore the election for the presidency is to be opened again. Thus the VP would not move up. However, on RONR p. 575, the statement is made that when there is a vacancy  in the presidency, the vice-president (in the absence of by-law language directing otherwise) "automatically" moves up. In your response, Josh, you use the term "incomplete" election. Would this mean that the VP would not move up? I apologize for the length of this discussion . . . but this is getting confusing . . . .

[Josh Martin]

After this long and torturous meander, our Grievance Committee (which is our formal committee of appeals) has just ruled that I was never actually elected and therefore the election for the presidency is to be opened again. Thus the VP would not move up. However, on RONR p. 575, the statement is made that when there is a vacancy  in the presidency, the vice-president (in the absence of by-law language directing otherwise) "automatically" moves up. In your response, Josh, you use the term "incomplete" election. Would this mean that the VP would not move up? I apologize for the length of this discussion . . . but this is getting confusing . . . .

Yes, in the event of an incomplete election for the President (which is the situation when an ineligible candidate is mistakenly elected), the election must be completed. In that circumstance, the VP does not automatically become President.

[Guest Woboot100]

Yes, in the event of an incomplete election for the President (which is the situation when an ineligible candidate is mistakenly elected), the election must be completed. In that circumstance, the VP does not automatically become President.

Thank you. I think we are at an end. Thanks to all of you.

[Richard Brown]

After this long and torturous meander, our Grievance Committee (which is our formal committee of appeals) has just ruled that I was never actually elected and therefore the election for the presidency is to be opened again.

I question whether this "grievance committee" truly has the power to invalidate an election.  Do your bylaws really give it that power?

 

It certainly would not have that power pursuant to RONR unless expressly granted in the bylaws.

 

Unfortunately, the fact that "we've always done it that way" sometimes carries more weight with the members than the actual rules of parliamentary procedure. It is ultimately up to your membership to interpret its own bylaws.

[Guest Woboot100]

Richard:

 

I completely agree and may argue this point quietly with my organization's CEO, who has the final say if s/he wants it.

 

But: my officers have been exhausted by this fight--waged as it was over real money and real contracts. I cannot ask them to do any more nor would they, despite the fact that the choice is likely to be between someone who used the system to wage a vendetta against them (and me) and my VP and the results very much uncertain. The decision gave them their posts back. They are great people who came awfully close to real trouble.

 

I have held high office with the organization for exactly two full decades . . . now I doubt that I could get ten votes. But I have the consolation of knowing that the furious defense I put up on the floor of the assembly threw sand in the works and helped push an appeal to the next level.

 

And it did not cost me my job . . . a result that was never certain.

 

So thanks to you and to Josh and to Shmeul and all the rest.