Reverse or overturn an election

[Guest Zev]

I find some of the discussion on this subject to be absolutely astonishing. Obviously the "or" or "and" issue of pages 653-654 must be taken into account. However, what would happen if some society had in their bylaws a provision that said something to the effect that the elected officer could not be impeached until such moment as they took office? They would be held in derision by the entire world.   And in my opinion any suggestion that this is even a remote possibility is also absurd. Once elected then the individual can be impeached. Tell this society to give notice of a special meeting, before the next regular meeting, to hold a trial if one is required, for the removal of this individual and that in that eventuality an election will be conducted to select a replacement. Problem solved.

[Dan Honemann]

6 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

I find some of the discussion on this subject to be absolutely astonishing. Obviously the "or" or "and" issue of pages 653-654 must be taken into account. However, what would happen if some society had in their bylaws a provision that said something to the effect that the elected officer could not be impeached until such moment as they took office? They would be held in derision by the entire world.   And in my opinion any suggestion that this is even a remote possibility is also absurd. Once elected then the individual can be impeached. Tell this society to give notice of a special meeting, before the next regular meeting, to hold a trial if one is required, for the removal of this individual and that in that eventuality an election will be conducted to select a replacement. Problem solved.

I'm not at all sure what it is that you find so astonishing in this discussion.

As best I can determine, there seems to be general agreement that this "officer-elect" can be removed through disciplinary proceedings prior to actually assuming the office to which he was elected, and most of the discussion seems to have centered around the question as to how to describe (or what to name) whatever it is that he is to be removed from.  🙂

The question Guest Oliver very sensibly asks is whether or not this "officer-elect" can be removed simply by the adoption of a motion to do so (utilizing the procedure described on p. 653, line 27 to p. 654, line 3) in view of the fact that their bylaws use the term "or until a successor is elected" in describing terms in office. I don't know the answer to this question, and suspect that if an answer is to be found anywhere it will have to be found within the four corners of their bylaws.

 

[J. J.]

9 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

I find some of the discussion on this subject to be absolutely astonishing. Obviously the "or" or "and" issue of pages 653-654 must be taken into account. However, what would happen if some society had in their bylaws a provision that said something to the effect that the elected officer could not be impeached until such moment as they took office? They would be held in derision by the entire world.   And in my opinion any suggestion that this is even a remote possibility is also absurd. Once elected then the individual can be impeached. Tell this society to give notice of a special meeting, before the next regular meeting, to hold a trial if one is required, for the removal of this individual and that in that eventuality an election will be conducted to select a replacement. Problem solved.

An assembly can, if it chooses, adopt a bylaw going so far as prohibiting the removal of an officer.  I have seen one set did just that. 

If the society wishes to a adopt a "no removal until taking office, it is perfectly free to do so.  It would not make any difference if you (or I) find it the subject of derision. 

[J. J.]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

As best I can determine, there seems to be general agreement that this "officer-elect" can be removed through disciplinary proceedings prior to actually assuming the office to which he was elected, and most of the discussion seems to have centered around the question as to how to describe (or what to name) whatever it is that he is to be removed from.  

I'll go a bit further.  I think that when a trial is needed to remove someone elected to an office, an officer to be could be removed by trial prior to that officer to be taking office.  I would base that on p. 308, ll. 29-30.

There are practical problems, because there is usually not enough time to draft charges and hold a trial.  If there would a long enough gap between the election and the individual taking office, it would be possible. 

[Benjamin Geiger]

52 minutes ago, J. J. said:

An assembly can, if it chooses, adopt a bylaw going so far as prohibiting the removal of an officer.  I have seen one set did just that. 

Wow. I thought our bylaw (in our parent organization's bylaws, so we can't do anything about it) requiring a vote of 2/3 of the membership to remove an officer was onerous. I'm fairly certain 2/3 of the membership has never been in the same room before.

Edited May 22, 2019 at 03:23 PM by Benjamin Geiger

[Dan Honemann]

3 hours ago, J. J. said:

I'll go a bit further.  I think that when a trial is needed to remove someone elected to an office, an officer to be could be removed by trial prior to that officer to be taking office.  I would base that on p. 308, ll. 29-30.

This isn't going a bit further at all. As I said, there seems to be general agreement that this "officer-elect" can be removed through disciplinary proceedings prior to actually assuming the office to which he was elected, and the question is whether or not he can be removed simply by the adoption a motion to do so (by majority vote, if previous notice has been given).