Bylaws and elections

[Guest Destiny]

An organization that I’m a part of has made a questionable motion. We recently had elections for our officers but the elected person was found to be ineligible after the vote. We only have 2 eligible candidates for the position and one has assumed another position. The organization was told to hold an election for the eligible candidate for the purpose of formalities. But then there was a motion to table the election for 30 days and change the requirement for office, that is in our bylaws, during that 30 day period so that the first candidate, who is ineligible, will be eligible. Is this a legal motion? Changing the bylaws to influence an election after the election has taken place? 

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

I don't see any problem if your bylaw amendment procedures are properly followed.

[Richard Brown]

On 1/18/2019 at 12:14 PM, Guest Destiny said:

But then there was a motion to table the election for 30 days and change the requirement for office, that is in our bylaws, during that 30 day period so that the first candidate, who is ineligible, will be eligible.

While I agree with the response above by GWCTD, I feel compelled to point out that what you described in the quote I posted above is a misuse of the motion to "Lay on the Table".  It is a common misuse. 

What your assembly actually did, regardless of what it was called, was to adopt a motion to "postpone to a definite time".  In RONR, there is no such thing as a motion  to "table".  The motion "Lay on the Table" is intended to set aside a pending matter temporarily in order to take up something that is more pressing.  No definite time is set for taking it back up.   It is usually with the intent of taking up the matter which was laid on the table later in the same session once the more pressing business has been taken care of. 

The motion to "Postpone to a definite time" is used when the intent is to postpone a pending item until a future definite date or time or to the next session.  What it appears your organization actually did was to postpone the election until the next meeting.

You might see FAQ # 12 on the main website for more information and for page references to RONR:  http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#12

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/18/2019 at 1:14 PM, Guest Destiny said:

An organization that I’m a part of has made a questionable motion. We recently had elections for our officers but the elected person was found to be ineligible after the vote. We only have 2 eligible candidates for the position and one has assumed another position. The organization was told to hold an election for the eligible candidate for the purpose of formalities. But then there was a motion to table the election for 30 days and change the requirement for office, that is in our bylaws, during that 30 day period so that the first candidate, who is ineligible, will be eligible. Is this a legal motion? Changing the bylaws to influence an election after the election has taken place? 

But the election hasn't taken place.  It was postponed (not "tabled") for 30 days, if I understand your post.  Did the motion to postpone for 30 days (incorrectly phrased as "tabled") achieve a majority vote?  If so, the election would seem to have been properly postponed.

As far as the bylaws are concerned, it's fine to change the eligibility criteria for election to office, as long as the proper procedures are followed.  As a general rule, it's better to change bylaws when you don't need to instead of waiting until you need to, but sometimes a bylaws provision seems like a good idea when first adopted, and then turns out to be too limiting later.  

Many organizations have no criteria at all for election to office and do just fine.  After all, if the voters don't think the person should be elected, they will presumably elect someone else.

 

[Guest Destiny]

The organization is an EMS organization, and the qualification is also one of the state requirement to be chief, and a federal suggestion. This candidate doesn’t just not have the qualification in question, she also doesn’t have multiple other state requirements and recommendations. The second candidate has all the qualifications and then some. We wanted to strictly follow our laws and Roberts rules without bringing the state into it but it appears we can’t. 

[Joshua Katz]

So the proposal is, in effect, to disalign your bylaws from your substantive state laws? An organization is free to do so according to RONR, but that will not absolve it from the legal consequences. But if you're looking for something in RONR telling you you can't change your bylaws, you won't find it - RONR is inferiour to your bylaws. You'll just need to use good old fashioned politics to persuade people that doing so is a bad idea, and that you face consequences outside of these voluntary rules (such as, perhaps, being denied agency certification? I don't know your state, of course.)