Guest Guest Posted December 14, 2016 at 08:04 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 at 08:04 PM Hello, I am on a board that recently had an election. The nominees were accepted, the board voted and by 2/3 vote a new president was elected 22 votes (14/8). The results were clearly not what some in previous power was expecting. A blindside you might say. The next day one of the board members "challenged" the qualifications of the newly elected president. This was not welcomed by the governing board that voted this person in as there was not a challenge before or during the election. And mind you the person challenging was the person that wrote, proposed the eligibility bylaw. also now the past president who ran against this person wants a re vote. He also was at this election and never brought up or challenged his qualifications and he sent out the qualification and eligibility requirements prior to the election, however everyone including these folks accepted the nominees and voted and did a thank you speech after. The board that voted was asked if they re-voted would they change their vote and the answer no and that they wanted to election to hold. The person that was just voted in was previously on the board as well. I will tell you if it were any other person who had the same qualifications as the new president there would not have been a challenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted December 14, 2016 at 08:07 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 at 08:07 PM What is your question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2016 at 08:15 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 at 08:15 PM Can they force the board to re vote? What they are trying to do it call the election void or illegal so they can "re vote" in which they will they challenge his qualifications. The person was on the board as mentioned and has alot of board experience. They are now using Robert's rule to valid their illegal claim. These folks have run this club for years and change bylaws and only follow certain ones when convenient. At this point I am not letting them change the majority boards election decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2016 at 08:17 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 at 08:17 PM 9 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said: What is your question? Sorry put it in the wrong spot. Can they force the board to re vote? What they are trying to do it call the election void or illegal so they can "re vote" in which they will they challenge his qualifications. The person was on the board as mentioned and has alot of board experience. They are now using Robert's rule to valid their illegal claim. These folks have run this club for years and change bylaws and only follow certain ones when convenient. At this point I am not letting them change the majority boards election decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted December 14, 2016 at 08:26 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 at 08:26 PM Does this person meet the qualifications for office as established in the bylaws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2016 at 08:38 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 at 08:38 PM 11 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said: Does this person meet the qualifications for office as established in the bylaws? Depends on who is interpreting it I guess. The first two qualifications conflict or ambiguous. The ones that don't want him are saying he does no as he needs to have had 2 years on the orgs board, however there is no time frame meaning so as long as he has 2 years at sometime he meets the qualifications. He also meets the qualifications of the second sentence as he was on the board for a years so he could be and officer and that officer be president right? Also at the time the board including the person opposing the election accepted his qualification and submitted a vote to elect him as president. He knew the requirements as he wrote them a year prior and so did all the board members who felt they wanted his nomination to be accepted. Qualifications/Eligibility. Nominees shall have at least two years of experience within the XXXX Board to be eligible to serve in the Executive Board. Nominees must have at least one year of experience serving as an officer in a nonprofit organization to be eligible to serve as a voting member of the XXXX board. The current Governing Board shall retain the right to deny the eligibility of my nominee based on past actions considered detrimental to the club, membership in competing organizations, or lack of proper qualification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted December 14, 2016 at 08:48 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 at 08:48 PM Ultimately it is up to your organization to interpret your bylaws. Then the bylaws should be amended to remove the ambiguity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2016 at 08:56 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 at 08:56 PM Just now, Hieu H. Huynh said: Ultimately it is up to your organization to interpret your bylaws. Then the bylaws should be amended to remove the ambiguity. Thanks. Can I mention one last thing. Initially it was the qualifications but after knowing they could not get their way with that they are trying to use the the below. I will tell you this president nor has the board EVER given 20-30 days notice, ever. as a matter of fact, This election they would not have either except the meeting was pushed back a week due to a death and the President sent an email and said he wanted to at least given a weeks notice. But now he is calling it void because of that and Roberts Rules of Law. Again this is only 3 people maybe that want a re election. The past folks again were not very by law driven until they don't get their way. Elections. Elections for the governing Board of the following year shall be held during the last general meeting of the fiscal year of the participants of XXXX. Parents or legal guardian of each participant shall have one vote in elections for the governing Board. At-large nominations for the Board will be accepted 20-30 days before the last general meeting of XXXX fiscal year. Elections shall be carried out by ballot (written or electronic). Consenting nominees elected to the Board shall select officers at the last meeting of the fiscal year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2016 at 09:01 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 at 09:01 PM I promise one last question. In the statement below. Does that mean that RROO are automatically envoked or do they need to be envoked at the meeting? Also although it is stated below I now the rules are not followed and it is just in place in order to contest or challenge something. Like they are trying to do now with voiding the election. The President may modify the order of presentation of any meeting's business to accommodate guests, Governing Board members or to bring about the efficient handling of matters to be presented. All meetings of XXXX shall be conducted in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order, latest edition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted December 14, 2016 at 10:11 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2016 at 10:11 PM >> But now he is calling it void because of that and Roberts Rules of Law. >> They are now using Robert's rule to valid their illegal claim. Even though you keep mentioning "Robert's Rules of Order," all your challenges (so far?) are based on unique customized rules (viz., qualification for office; lead time for nominations). So far, I see no violation of any rule in the 700+ pages of the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. If you (collectively) have violated a bylaw, then you will have to interpret and apply that bylaw. -- There is no way for us to definitively interpret your customized rules, which are not lifted from Robert's Rules of Order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 15, 2016 at 02:46 AM Report Share Posted December 15, 2016 at 02:46 AM It may not be relevant, but a vote of 14 - 8 does not amount to a 2/3 vote, if that was indeed the requirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts