Elections

[Guest SAK]

Our bylaws require the Nominating Committee to bring forth nominees to fill the open positions at the September GMM, at which time nominations are taken from the floor also.  The nominations are then closed.  A ballot must be sent in September and election results are tallied at the October GMM.  Our bylaws also state that the “Election Procedures shall be the charge of the Nominating Committee”.  Our positions had one candidate for 3 of the 4 positions and 2 for the other position.  Later the same day, one of the nominees wished to withdraw her name.  The President and BOD wanted to reopen nominations.  The Committee disagreed and refused to do so as in many past years the elections were run with only one nominee for each position.  The President and Board said they had other nominees to add.  A few days later the President sent an email stating they were not going to move forward with reopening the nominations.  One day before the October GMM, a Past President found that a Bylaw had been deleted from our Bylaws roster stating a nominee must have served 1 year on the Board before being eligible to run for the VP office.  This nominee served 8 months and then resigned for personal reasons.  Here it is one day before election count.  What is the correct way to handle this disaster?

[Atul Kapur]

Well, first you have to figure out if the 1-year requirement was deleted by a proper motion to amend the bylaws or was this just a clerical error. If the requirement is still valid, then you should  not declare elected an unqualified candidate. This will leave you with an incomplete election that you should complete as soon as possible, following your rules.

[Guest SAK]

Just found out the deletion was a clerical error.  So that nominee is fine with not running for that position this year.  Now, does the Board or the Membership declare the election null and void?  And wouldn’t all the membership have an opportunity to be nominated and not just those at the meeting that declared the election null and void?  Also, the Nominating Committee should approve the nominees as the previous time?  And last wouldn’t there have to be a special meeting to cover this election?

[Atul Kapur]

Well, if the “Election Procedures shall be the charge of the Nominating Committee” as you say, then I think these decisions are up to them. I wouldn't declare the election null and void, just incomplete, as I said before. It would be better to give reasonable notice to the membership.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest SAK said:

Now, does the Board or the Membership declare the election null and void?

I don’t see any need for anyone to declare the election null and void because the result of the election has not yet been declared.

Rather, what should happen is that the chairman, at the regular meeting where the results are announced, would announce that no eligible candidate received a majority of the votes cast for the office in question and, as a result, the election is incomplete for that office and therefore another round of voting must be held.

1 hour ago, Guest SAK said:

And wouldn’t all the membership have an opportunity to be nominated and not just those at the meeting that declared the election null and void?  Also, the Nominating Committee should approve the nominees as the previous time?  And last wouldn’t there have to be a special meeting to cover this election?

I don’t know. In the ordinary case, the election takes place at a meeting, and the assembly itself is in charge of the elections, so the assembly could immediately proceed to another round of voting, perhaps after first reopening nominations.

Since your organization has its own rules on these subjects, it will be up to the organization to interpret those rules.

[Gary Novosielski]

4 hours ago, Guest SAK said:

Just found out the deletion was a clerical error.  So that nominee is fine with not running for that position this year.  Now, does the Board or the Membership declare the election null and void?  And wouldn’t all the membership have an opportunity to be nominated and not just those at the meeting that declared the election null and void?  Also, the Nominating Committee should approve the nominees as the previous time?  And last wouldn’t there have to be a special meeting to cover this election?

There's nothing null or void about the election as a whole.  It appears you have no eligible candidates for one of the offices.  That's the only glitch you need to deal with.  Except in the unlikely event that a write-in candidate wins a majority in that election, a second ballot must be held.  Additional nominations from the floor would again be in order, but I'm guessing you would need to do that at a meeting.