Nullify election and hold a new election

[tgrantjr]

I am new to roberts rules and have an odd question i cannot find anywhere.  This deals with our fire department.  We are volunteers take mind.  We hold elections for fire officers and administrative officers on odd years according to the bylaws of our station.  Our bylaws state that a member can only run for one position on the fire line officers side in a given election.  Two people were nominated for multiple.  Also take mind that our election process is 3 months long.  Nominations at the business meeting each month and voting after the third nomination process takes place.  We ran into a problem with the people nominated for multiple positions and our by laws state that any issue that arises that is not covered by our bylaws is to be referred to in roberts rules of order.  What happened was the election was nullified by the president and the positions where people ran for multiples were opened for nominations.  After they were closed they went to an immediate vote . Is this the proper procedure in roberts rules?  I am not sure if we are to hold it over 3 months again or the single meeting where the issue was corrected was enough.  All officers were sworn in that night and took effect.  We can still rectify if needed.  I just cannot find a straight answer.  Thank you

[Hieu H. Huynh]

3 hours ago, tgrantjr said:

What happened was the election was nullified by the president and the positions where people ran for multiples were opened for nominations.  After they were closed they went to an immediate vote . Is this the proper procedure in roberts rules?

No, the president does not have such power unless the bylaws provide it.

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, tgrantjr said:

I am new to roberts rules and have an odd question i cannot find anywhere.  This deals with our fire department.  We are volunteers take mind.  We hold elections for fire officers and administrative officers on odd years according to the bylaws of our station.  Our bylaws state that a member can only run for one position on the fire line officers side in a given election.  Two people were nominated for multiple.  Also take mind that our election process is 3 months long.  Nominations at the business meeting each month and voting after the third nomination process takes place.  We ran into a problem with the people nominated for multiple positions and our by laws state that any issue that arises that is not covered by our bylaws is to be referred to in roberts rules of order.  What happened was the election was nullified by the president and the positions where people ran for multiples were opened for nominations.  After they were closed they went to an immediate vote . Is this the proper procedure in roberts rules?  I am not sure if we are to hold it over 3 months again or the single meeting where the issue was corrected was enough.  All officers were sworn in that night and took effect.  We can still rectify if needed.  I just cannot find a straight answer.  Thank you

Let me make sure I understand the facts:

• The bylaws provide that a member can only “run for” one position.
• The bylaws provide for nominations at three separate meetings.
• The President ruled something out of order - you say he “nullified” the election.
• Nominations were opened for the positions where some members were nominated for multiple positions.

I think everything is a done deal at this point, as I don’t think there are any continuing breaches. As to whether what happened was proper, that’s less clear. I have some questions.

• What is the exact wording of this “running for multiple positions” rule?
• What exactly did the President do when he “nullified” the election? It sounds like he ruled some or all of the nominations out of order.
• Who made the decision to reopen nominations?
• Please clarify what the bylaws say about this three meeting process for nominations.

27 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

No, the president does not have such power unless the bylaws provide it.

The President may not have the power to “nullify” an election, but he certainly could rule one or more nominations out of order because they violated the assembly’s rules, which I think is what actually happened. 

[tgrantjr]

The exact wording on the "running for multiple positions" is that a member can only be nominated for one line officer position (chief, Asst Chief, Captain, Lieutenant) . Two members were nominated for 2 positions which would be a bylaw infraction.  It was not caught until voting was done last month.  No officers were sworn into their positions they were voted to until after the re-election process was done.

The president ruled the election for chief and assistant chief void due to the violation of the bylaws.  

the president made the decision to reopen nominations without the consensus of the body voting yay or nay on the subject.

[J. J.]

11 hours ago, tgrantjr said:

The exact wording on the "running for multiple positions" is that a member can only be nominated for one line officer position (chief, Asst Chief, Captain, Lieutenant) . Two members were nominated for 2 positions which would be a bylaw infraction.  It was not caught until voting was done last month.  No officers were sworn into their positions they were voted to until after the re-election process was done.

The president ruled the election for chief and assistant chief void due to the violation of the bylaws.  

the president made the decision to reopen nominations without the consensus of the body voting yay or nay on the subject.

Nominations and elections are two different things.    Unless the bylaws say that only individuals properly nominated may be elected, i.e. making a proper nomination a condition of eligibility, an election would not be voided due to an improper nomination.

A violation of the bylaws may create a "breach of a continuing nature."  It is subject to a point of order "at any time during the continuance of the breach (p. 251, ll. 3-7, emphasis added)."

If this was a breach related solely to the propriety of a nomination, a point of order would have to be raised with the nominations were still out there.  Once there has been an election, an improper nomination is no longer before the assembly and any breach has "healed" as it were; that breach is no longer continuing and not subject to a point of order.  This applies only when a nomination is not made a condition for election to an office. 

A point of order could, potentially, have been raised at any point between the time of the improper nomination and the election, which could be several months, as you noted.  Once the election happened there are no longer nominations before the assembly; any breach relating solely to nominations, even if it normally a breach of a continuing nature, is no longer continuing and cannot be correction by the chair or the assembly. 

[Josh Martin]

15 hours ago, tgrantjr said:

The exact wording on the "running for multiple positions" is that a member can only be nominated for one line officer position (chief, Asst Chief, Captain, Lieutenant) . Two members were nominated for 2 positions which would be a bylaw infraction.  It was not caught until voting was done last month.  No officers were sworn into their positions they were voted to until after the re-election process was done.

The president ruled the election for chief and assistant chief void due to the violation of the bylaws.  

the president made the decision to reopen nominations without the consensus of the body voting yay or nay on the subject.

Hm. I had thought the problem was caught before voting occurred.  This complicates things.

Based on these facts, it seems to me that the President’s ruling was in error. What should be done now is that a Point of Order should be raised that the second election is null and void, and the candidates elected in the original election are in office. If necessary, an Appeal may be raised from the decision of the chair. I concur with J. J. that a Point of Order regarding the violation in the nominating procedures was no longer timely after the voting was over.

[tgrantjr]

Thanks everyone for the answers.  I never would have known this myself.  I did go out and buy the book to reference during the meeting if any issues arise to have proof.  The copy i have is the websters 3rd edition.  I will have to go thru around the page mentioned in an earlier post and mark the page.  I know people are not going to be happy that we have to do this, but rules are rules.  Our bylaws do not cover this kind of situation.  There is a clause in them stating that if something arises that is not in the bylaws it is :

 

1. Any item not specifically covered by the constitution and bylaws shall be governed by a majority vote of the body present. Roberts Rules of Order may be referenced for items not specifically addressed in this Constitution and Bylaws or covered by a majority vote of the members present.

I will attach a copy of our bylaws.  They are public knowledge and not private so its not a big deal.  Just in case someone needs to reference.

Monaca5ByLawsJune2014.docx

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, tgrantjr said:

The copy i have is the websters 3rd edition

Throw it in the garbage. This is not an official edition of Robert’s Rules of Order.

See here for how to get The Right Book.

 

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Mr. Martin. "The Right Book, RONR ( Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 11th Edition) is only about $12 on Amazon and $19 in bookstores. Get the right book.

As a supplement to it, you might consider Robert's Rules of Order newly revised in brief, which is about $7. For help in understanding RONR, but not as a substitute for it, I recommend Robert's Rules For Dummies by C. Alan Jennings . It's currently in its Third Edition. 

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree with Mr. Martin. "The Right Book, RONR ( Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 11th Edition) is only about $12 on Amazon and $19 in bookstores. Get the right book.

As a supplement to it, you might consider Robert's Rules of Order newly revised in brief, which is about $7. For help in understanding RONR, but not as a substitute for it, I recommend Robert's Rules For Dummies by C. Alan Jennings . It's currently in its Third Edition. 

I didn't know it was in its third edition.  Thank you!

Edited January 11, 2018 at 05:39 PM by J. J.