Can a nomination be revoked?

[Guest Bonny Allegro]

I have a couple of issues I need help and guidance with.

The background information is that our club worked on revisions to our constitution and by laws during board meetings and membership meetings in the fall of 2016 and January of 2017..  The document was sent out to the membership, February 2017.  We neglected to take a vote to approve the document at the following meeting---oversight---but we have been following the document as if we had for the past 1.5 years.  And we have been functioning cohesively and orderly.

Now, our nominating committee has presented a slate of officers in August for 2019.  A board member recently  wrote a letter, and signed by four other members to the club petitioning for a "special meeting to be called to revoke the nomination of the candidate for president because we are using an illegitimate document."  ((Our former constitution had two years term limit, new one we were using has four years.))  They are demanding that the nominating committee be present and immediately nominate a new candidate for presidency.

 

My questions:

Can a board member be a part of a petition against the club?

Can a nomination be revoked, versus voted against?

Going forward, what is the best way to handle the problem with the Constitution.  Is it okay for us to email the membership, admitting that   we neglected to have the membership vote to approve the constitution by sending it out again and calling for the vote at our next meeting in two weeks?  Is there a better way to handle this situation?  

 

Really looking for guidance.  Unfortunately, we have a small group that would rather see us fail than to help us correct our mistakes and move on. 

[Joshua Katz]

9 minutes ago, Guest Bonny Allegro said:

Can a board member be a part of a petition against the club?

 

I don't know what "against the club" means. Do you have a process (in your real bylaws, not the ones you never adopted) for calling special meetings, and does it involve a petition? In any case, the petition here doesn't strike me as against the club, but as asking the club to do something. If you do not have any provisions for special meetings, then special meetings are not permitted.

10 minutes ago, Guest Bonny Allegro said:

 Can a nomination be revoked, versus voted against?

 

Ordinarily, the nominating committee does not nominate a "slate." Rather, it reports out all nominees, and the floor is then open for further nominations. Do your bylaws (again, the ones actually in effect, not the ones you never voted on) have "slate" provisions, or limit nominations in some way? In any case, whoever made a nomination can seek permission to withdraw it (I think, see if others chime in on that) just as he can seek permission to withdraw a motion, but cannot do so unilaterally. Of course, it sounds here like the people seeking permission to withdraw are not those who made the nomination, in which case they can't do much of anything except, as you say, vote against the person. Even if the nomination is withdrawn, unless your rules say otherwise, people can still vote for that person via write-in.

14 minutes ago, Guest Bonny Allegro said:

 Going forward, what is the best way to handle the problem with the Constitution.  Is it okay for us to email the membership, admitting that   we neglected to have the membership vote to approve the constitution by sending it out again and calling for the vote at our next meeting in two weeks?  Is there a better way to handle this situation?  

 

What do your current rules say about amending your Constitution and bylaws? Follow whatever procedure is in there for amendments. 

I have to admit, I have no idea what the fact that you've been following something that is not your bylaws has to do with the nomination, but perhaps I'm missing something. If the term is 2 years, it's 2 years - that doesn't make nominations somehow improper, and I'm also not clear how, if it did, doing it again would change anything. Again, perhaps I'm missing something.

[Guest Bonny]

The former constitution had a term limit of 2 years for the president.  The new document, the one not voted on has 4.  The current president is in their second year and the nominating committee nominated the individual for third year.  The complaint is that we must abide by the 2 year term, thus "revoking the nomination of the president" and renominating a replacement.  

[Guest Bonny]

So going forward, can we correct the error by re sending the document and calling for a vote?  

[Richard Brown]

29 minutes ago, Guest Bonny Allegro said:

We neglected to take a vote to approve the document at the following meeting---oversight---but we have been following the document as if we had for the past 1.5 years.  And we have been functioning cohesively and orderly.

Then the "new" bylaws were never adopted and are not in effect. You are still operating under the "old" bylaws.

31 minutes ago, Guest Bonny Allegro said:

Going forward, what is the best way to handle the problem with the Constitution.  Is it okay for us to email the membership, admitting that   we neglected to have the membership vote to approve the constitution by sending it out again and calling for the vote at our next meeting in two weeks?  Is there a better way to handle this situation?

You need to follow the amendment process in the bylaws which are actually in effect.  It seems to me that's the "old" bylaws. We don't know what those provisions are.  As to what to do moving forward, It might be possible to send the "new" bylaws out to the membership now with a notice that they will  be voted on at the next regular or special meeting.  Whether it happens at the next regular meeting, at a special meeting, or at a future meeting, the bylaws revision can be taken up at any time in the meeting.  Since bylaws (and bylaw amendments and revisions) take effect immediately unless provided otherwise, the new bylaws could control what happens at the rest of the meeting.... such as the elections (which would  include the length of terms, term limits, etc).  The person who has been nominated by the nominating committee would suddenly be eligible for the office again.

36 minutes ago, Guest Bonny Allegro said:

Now, our nominating committee has presented a slate of officers in August for 2019.  A board member recently  wrote a letter, and signed by four other members to the club petitioning for a "special meeting to be called to revoke the nomination of the candidate for president because we are using an illegitimate document."  ((Our former constitution had two years term limit, new one we were using has four years.))  They are demanding that the nominating committee be present and immediately nominate a new candidate for presidency.

Unless authorized by your bylaws.... which I find doubtful.... neither the membership nor the board has the power to "direct" the nominating committee to do anything other than come  up with nominations.  I don't see how the nominating committee can be directed to withdraw or cancel a nomination and come up with a new one.  However, it is my opinion that the nominating committee itself does have the power to at least present the name of an additional nominee and probably to actually change its nominee for president.  I don't think it can be compelled to do that, though.    Some of my colleagues might disagree as to whether the nominating committee can "change"  its nominee for president, so stay tuned.  I think it can clearly submit an additional nominee unless your bylaws prohibit it.

The fact that a nominee might not be eligible for the office to which nominated is a separate issue.   Also,  if your bylaws do get amended before the elections are actually conducted, this person might actually become eligible due to the doubled term limits.

We don't know what your bylaw provisions are for calling a special meeting.  RONR contains no rules as to who may or may not request a special meeting.   It's up to the person or persons  or  body authorized to call special meetings to decide whether to do so.  Do your bylaws provide for calling a special meeting by petition?

[Richard Brown]

17 minutes ago, Guest Bonny said:

The former constitution had a term limit of 2 years for the president.  The new document, the one not voted on has 4.  The current president is in their second year and the nominating committee nominated the individual for third year.  The complaint is that we must abide by the 2 year term, thus "revoking the nomination of the president" and renominating a replacement.  

I disagree with that assertion.  Perhaps the nominating committee should come up with another nominee.... and perhaps its members believe they should not.  As I stated in my previous post, I do not think the board or the membership has the authority to direct the committee to come up with another nominee and I do not believe that the current nomination  has in any way been "revoked".   The nominee may or may not  be eligible for office right now, but that is a separate issue.  And  even if he or she is ineligible right now, that will apparently change if the new bylaws are adopted prior to the elections.

[Joshua Katz]

Is there some rule against serving twice consecutively? If not, it sounds like someone is confusing a two year term with a two year term limit.

[Richard Brown]

Guest Bonnie, when are your elections supposed to take place?   In all probability, it is possible to postpone the elections until  after the new bylaws are adopted.  How to go about doing that is a rather technical matter:  You cannot postpone the elections in advance, but rather, at the meeting at which they are to take place, when the elections become the pending item of business, someone may move at that time to postpone the nominations to the next meeting (or to an adjourned meeting or to a special meeting).  A majority vote is all i takes to postpone the elections.

[Richard Brown]

4 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Is there some rule against serving twice consecutively? If not, it sounds like someone is confusing a two year term with a two year term limit.

From Guest Bonny's original post:  " ((Our former constitution had two years term limit, new one we were using has four years.)) "

And from her second post:  " The former constitution had a term limit of 2 years for the president.  The new document, the one not voted on has 4. "

It sounds like term limits to me.

Edited October 24, 2018 at 04:01 PM by Richard Brown

[Joshua Katz]

4 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

 It sounds like term limits to me.

In light of these quotes, I agree. Sorry, I'm squeezing in answers while files are loading.

[Gary Novosielski]

It should not require a petition to force the organization to comply with its own bylaws.  All it requires is one member raising a Point of Order that the "new" bylaws are not in effect because they were never approved.  The chair would appear to have no choice but to rule the point well taken, but if necessary, an Appeal could be moved.

It sounds like the nominating committee has already reported, in which case the nomination would not be "revoked" but it might be the case that a candidate would be ineligible for election under the existing bylaws, and the chair should so rule.  Additional nominations from the floor would be in order in any case.

If your bylaws amendment procedure will allow you enough time to get the new bylaws approved before the election, you could avoid the problem altogether.

Edited October 26, 2018 at 05:06 AM by Gary Novosielski