Improperly Held Election

[Luscombag]

I am a member of a school booster organization and at our last regular meeting the Nominating Committee presented their slate of officers for the election. The president sought reelection and was the sole person on the Committee's slate for the office of President, though there was other nominations. The President then quoted part of Robert's Rules regarding a slate for elections, saying typically there is only one nominee per office on the slate. The President then proceeded to say that the Nominating Committee decides the officers and there is no election. This was in our regular meeting in April.

I know this is not right, and I voiced my concerns at the time in the meeting, but I did not have Robert's Rules or our By-Laws available at the time. My understanding is that under Robert's Rules the Nominating Committee creates a slate, then additional nominations can be taken from the floor and an election is held. I'm hoping someone can tell me where in Robert's Rules it speaks about this, because I can't seem to find it, and whether or not there is a way I can fix this at the next meeting so an actual election can be held.

Below are our By-Laws regarding elections:

Section 10.9 Elections

Section 10.9.1 Nominating Committee Appointment: A nominating committee shall be appointed by the President at the regular March meeting each year. This committee shall meet before the regular April meeting to put together a slate of nominations from the active membership.

Section 10.9.2 Presentation of Officer Nominees: The nominating committee will present their slate to the general membership at the regular April meeting. Nominations may be given to nominating committee no later than one week prior to the regular April meeting. The election of officers shall occur at the regular April meeting.

Section 10.9.3 Vote Requirement: A majority vote of the membership present at the regular April meeting shall constitute an election.

Section 10.9.4 Assume Office: Newly elected officers shall assume office on June 1; at the beginning of the new School year. Following the election, the incoming officers will serve along with current officers until June 1.

[Guest Zev]

10 minutes ago, Luscombag said:

The President then proceeded to say that the Nominating Committee decides the officers and there is no election.

Excuse me? No election?? In other words, the president selected the nominating committee, which our book recommends against doing, and they selected and elected him thereby preventing the assembly from exercising its prerogative of selecting the officers of this society. I cannot think of a more outrageous event than this. Sounds more like el presidente rather than just president.

These bylaws contain at least two glaring mistakes, in my opinion. (1) on Section 10.9.1 giving the president the right to appoint the nominating committee. Change that to an election by the assembly; (2) The wording in Section 10.9.2 starting with "Nominations may be given..." which may lead some to think that if the nominating committee did not nominate them then they cannot be nominated at all. Delete that sentence and insert "Additional nominations will be allowed from the floor before the election."

Additional details about nominations and elections is found in RONR 11th edition pages 430-446.

At the next meeting raise a Point Of Order to the effect that the nominating committee cannot exercise a greater authority than the assembly and that depriving the assembly of its prerogatives renders this election (I would have said "sham of an election") null and void. If el presidente rules against you then raise an Appeal and have a friend at the ready to second the Appeal. If he refuses to recognize the Appeal my suggestion is to move to Suspend The Rules "to declare the chair vacant and proceed to an election of a president pro tempore." A two-thirds vote is required in this event. If he recognizes the Appeal then a majority vote is required to reverse the ruling. (My apology if I sound somewhat harsh.)

 

[Richard Brown]

6 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

If he refuses to recognize the Appeal my suggestion is to move to Suspend The Rules "to declare the chair vacant and proceed to an election of a president pro tempore."  A two-thirds vote is required in this event.

That is incorrect and is not the rule.  Guest Zev, I believe you have made mistakenly quoted this  provision before.  It is not the correct procedure nor the correct rule for this situation.

The provision you are referring to for  declaring the chair vacant is found on page 651 at lines 24-26.  However, that provision.... the ability to "declare the chair vacant"... applies ONLY to a chair who is "an appointed or elected chairman pro tem".  It DOES NOT APPLY TO THE REGULAR PRESIDING OFFICER.  In addition, the motion you incorrectly refer to requires only a majority vote, not a two thirds vote.

The provision for removing the regular presiding officer from presiding is found on starting on page 652 at line 3 and continues on to page 653 at line 19.  It requires a suspension of the rules and a two thirds vote.  As provided on page 652 at lines 3-4, a motion to remove the regular presiding officer from presiding by declaring the chair vacant IS NOT IN ORDER.

It is possible to remove the regular presiding officer from presiding during a meeting, but it is by virtue of the provisions on pages 652-653, not the provision you referred to on page 651. And it requires a two thirds vote.

[Josh Martin]

8 hours ago, Luscombag said:

I'm hoping someone can tell me where in Robert's Rules it speaks about this, because I can't seem to find it,

“After the nominating committee has presented its report and before voting for the different offices takes place, the chair must call for further nominations from the floor.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 435)

8 hours ago, Luscombag said:

and whether or not there is a way I can fix this at the next meeting so an actual election can be held.

At the next regular meeting, or at a special meeting called for the purpose, make a motion to hold the election, since the election was not held in April as required by the assembly’s rules. The chairman will presumably rule this out of order, so appeal from this ruling. A majority vote is required to overturn the chairman’s ruling.

8 hours ago, Luscombag said:

The President then quoted part of Robert's Rules regarding a slate for elections, saying typically there is only one nominee per office on the slate.

If only he had also read the next page, he would have understood that while this is absolutely correct, members are also free to make nominations from the floor.

[Guest Zev]

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

That is incorrect and is not the rule.  Guest Zev, I believe you have made mistakenly quoted this  provision before.  It is not the correct procedure nor the correct rule for this situation.

Quote

If the chair is not an appointed or elected chairman pro tem, a motion to declare the chair vacant is not in order. However, a motion can be made to Suspend the Rules so as to take away from him the authority to preside during all or part of a given session.*

RONR 11th edition page 652.

What I said was,

12 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

If he refuses to recognize the Appeal my suggestion is to move to Suspend The Rules "to declare the chair vacant and proceed to an election of a president pro tempore."

I agree that a motion to simply declare the chair vacant is not correct, after all that is what the book says, but that is not what I said. Perhaps there is a difference between a motion to Suspend The Rules and "declare the chair vacant" and a motion to Suspend The Rules and "take away from him the authority to preside."

[Atul Kapur]

If there is a difference, it is that declaring the chair vacant could be confused with "permanent removal of the presiding officer and removal of authority to exercise administrative duties conferred by the bylaws." (p. 653) and that taking away the authority to preside is more specific.

[Luscombag]

10 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

At the next regular meeting, or at a special meeting called for the purpose, make a motion to hold the election, since the election was not held in April as required by the assembly’s rules. The chairman will presumably rule this out of order, so appeal from this ruling. A majority vote is required to overturn the chairman’s ruling.

I will do this at the next meeting. I thought I had a copy of Robert's Rules, but it turns out it was a lengthy PDF cheat-sheet. I purchased the official 11th Edition today and it is so much more clear. I knew there were things that needed to be changed in our bylaws, but I didn't know how many items were incorrect.

Thank all of you for the help! I know the basics of Robert's Rules from union meetings, but I have more to learn than I could have imagined.

[Guest Zev]

6 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

If there is a difference, it is that declaring the chair vacant could be confused with "permanent removal of the presiding officer and removal of authority to exercise administrative duties conferred by the bylaws." (p. 653) and that taking away the authority to preside is more specific.

I readily admit that some confusion is possible. We, hopefully all of us, strive to minimize or eliminate such events. Please observe that the book suggests the language "declaring the chair vacant" in those cases involving appointed chair but has no specific language for the removal of the regular presiding officer. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that different language is required. Since I do not know what exact language this book is suggesting I will defer that controversy to those that think what it is. And if they can suggest something better, I reserve the right to agree with them and join their camp. If they will take me. In the meantime, good luck member Luscombag.

[Luscombag]

To give an update: According to our By-Laws, if an issue arises we are to submit the issue in writing to the Executive Committee , which I have done and they are meeting this evening to discuss the issue. If they do not rule in a manner that I find appropriate, I can then make a motion at the next meeting and have the membership decide. 

I have seen on this forum, though I can't seem to find it now, where someone said RONR prohibits the use of a slate in elections. I know its not recommended language, but is it actually prohibited? If so, where in RONR does it state this? I can't find this written anywhere.

[Josh Martin]

52 minutes ago, Luscombag said:

I have seen on this forum, though I can't seem to find it now, where someone said RONR prohibits the use of a slate in elections. I know its not recommended language, but is it actually prohibited? If so, where in RONR does it state this? I can't find this written anywhere.

RONR does not prohibit the use of the word “slate,” but whether or not this word is used for the list of nominees presented by the nominating committee, members are free to vote for any eligible person for each office. There is not a single yes/no vote on the “slate” in its entirety.

”Votes can be cast for any person who is eligible for election” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 439)

Edited April 29, 2019 at 03:23 PM by Josh Martin

[Luscombag]

Just now, Josh Martin said:

RONR does not prohibit the use of the word “slate,” but whether or not this word is used, members are free to vote for any eligible person for each office. 

I have a feeling that the president will try to interpret the word slate as the only form for which the nominations can be presented and may continue with the false information that the Nominating Committee is the only group that can make nominations. Most members and officers do not know RONR well and since I am not on the Executive Committee, I am trying to give my supporters on the EC as much information as possible so they can hold their own against any potential falsehoods presented by the president. I have already mentioned pg 435 and other references, but if you have a place where I can look and see where it explicitly says all members must be able to vote for a person of their choosing for each office, I'd greatly appreciate that information.

If you can think of anything else that may help combat this injustice, I am ready to listen. Thank you!

[Joshua Katz]

If the president believes that only one person can be nominated for each position, what does he think the election is for?

[Luscombag]

24 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

If the president believes that only one person can be nominated for each position, what does he think the election is for?

I truly don't know. The President quickly dismissed my concerns, asked the membership to approve the slate and then announced they were the new officers. She has been fighting me and causing much drama and divisiveness. Half of the Executive Committee has been appointed by her and a portion of the other half don't agree with her, but aren't the types to rock the boat. I think if it is completely black and white they will make the correct decision, but if she can cloud their judgement with incorrect information or emotional appeals, I may have to continue to fight this at the next meeting. 

She has already started to act vindictive towards my wife and won't make eye contact with me, and others believe I am making too big of a deal about this. The President has violated the By-laws and RONR multiple times in the past 12 months and I can't stand idle and watch the organization deteriorate. Most of these members do not understand the purpose or importance of the By-Laws. 

This is why I need as much information as I can gather. 

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Luscombag said:

have already mentioned pg 435 and other references, but if you have a place where I can look and see where it explicitly says all members must be able to vote for a person of their choosing for each office, I'd greatly appreciate that information.

“Votes can be cast for any person who is eligible for election, even if he has not been nominated.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 439)

Is that explicit enough?

[Luscombag]

31 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

“Votes can be cast for any person who is eligible for election, even if he has not been nominated.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 439)

Is that explicit enough?

For me, yes. But since we don't have an established form of election in our By-laws, I'm afraid she will argue that it only applies to ballot elections and since she did a vote viva voce to approve the slate, that she may consider that an election. I also know it seems almost self explanatory, but since there doesn't seem to be a definition of "election" she may try to argue that the viva voce slate approval counts as an election. 

It specifically states that the President must call for nominations from the floor and I don't see how she can get around that point and on page 252 it says its never too late to take action when the right of individual members have been violated, but I've been playing Devil's Advocate with myself and trying to be prepared for any cockamamie excuse she digs up to keep things as they are. 

I know it's implied throughout RONR, but if it specifically states the membership are the higher authority or that the officers are subordinate to the members, I can't find it.

Again, I'm just trying to expand my arsenal so I am prepared for every possible scenario.