IMPROPER NOMINATION, VOID ELECTION?

[ps23435]

Greetings.  This question involves the nomination and subsequent election of the president of a volunteer organization.  The organization follows RONR for parliamentary procedures.  In this case, there was an annual election of officers.  The Bylaws of the organization provide that nominations for these positions may only be made by "delegates."  (I am not a member of this organization so not really sure what the function of a "delegate" is, however their Bylaws are clear as to that is who may make a nomination.)  A nomination for the position of president was made from the floor by a person who was not a "delegate."  Apparently no one noticed the error and the nomination was accepted.  That individual was elected.  No objection to the fact the nomination was not made by a "delegate" was made at the time of the nomination and election.  Now (3 months later) a question is asked as to whether the election should be voided due to the flawed nomination.  The organization's Bylaws are silent on this.  My understanding of RONR (admittedly not as extensive as you-alls!) is that except for limited circumstance, objections to an election must be made at the time of the election.  The exceptions being:  elected individual does not meet the qualifications for election; there already was a valid election for the current term; votes of non-members or absentees affected the result of the election; proper notice  of the election was not given; and disenfranchisement of members would change the result.   I am not sure a flawed nomination would fit into any of these categories.    Your perspectives appreciated.  Thank you in advance.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, ps23435 said:

My understanding of RONR (admittedly not as extensive as you-alls!) is that except for limited circumstance, objections to an election must be made at the time of the election.  The exceptions being:  elected individual does not meet the qualifications for election; there already was a valid election for the current term; votes of non-members or absentees affected the result of the election; proper notice  of the election was not given; and disenfranchisement of members would change the result.   I am not sure a flawed nomination would fit into any of these categories.

Your understanding is correct. The fact that the nomination was made by a non-delegate is not a continuing breach, and a Point of Order regarding this issue would have had to be raised at the time.

[J. J.]

13 hours ago, ps23435 said:

Greetings.  This question involves the nomination and subsequent election of the president of a volunteer organization.  The organization follows RONR for parliamentary procedures.  In this case, there was an annual election of officers.  The Bylaws of the organization provide that nominations for these positions may only be made by "delegates."  (I am not a member of this organization so not really sure what the function of a "delegate" is, however their Bylaws are clear as to that is who may make a nomination.)  A nomination for the position of president was made from the floor by a person who was not a "delegate."  Apparently no one noticed the error and the nomination was accepted.  That individual was elected.  No objection to the fact the nomination was not made by a "delegate" was made at the time of the nomination and election.  Now (3 months later) a question is asked as to whether the election should be voided due to the flawed nomination.  The organization's Bylaws are silent on this.  My understanding of RONR (admittedly not as extensive as you-alls!) is that except for limited circumstance, objections to an election must be made at the time of the election.  The exceptions being:  elected individual does not meet the qualifications for election; there already was a valid election for the current term; votes of non-members or absentees affected the result of the election; proper notice  of the election was not given; and disenfranchisement of members would change the result.   I am not sure a flawed nomination would fit into any of these categories.    Your perspectives appreciated.  Thank you in advance.

I agree with Mr. Martin and will note two things.

1.  If this was a ballot or roll call vote, nominations are not strictly needed (p. 430, ll. 17-20).

2. It would be possible to suspend the rules to permit a non-member to make a nomination.  RONR notes that "the rules cannot be suspended so as to give the right to vote to a nonmember p. 263, ll. 22-23)," there is no prohibition on suspending the rules to permit a nonmember to make a motion. 

[AFS1970]

Asking what I hope is a related question to this (at least related enough to not taint the thread), if the bylaws require a nomination does that make a valid nomination a qualification for office? In this case wouldn't the improper nomination be not meeting the qualifications for office?

[Richard Brown]

50 minutes ago, AFS1970 said:

Asking what I hope is a related question to this (at least related enough to not taint the thread), if the bylaws require a nomination does that make a valid nomination a qualification for office? In this case wouldn't the improper nomination be not meeting the qualifications for office?

In my opinion, this would not make any difference and if someone is nominated by someone not entitled to make nominations, and is nonetheless elected without a timely point of order being raised, the election is valid.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, AFS1970 said:

Asking what I hope is a related question to this (at least related enough to not taint the thread), if the bylaws require a nomination does that make a valid nomination a qualification for office? In this case wouldn't the improper nomination be not meeting the qualifications for office?

I think it is difficult to answer this question because I am uncertain exactly what is meant by “if the bylaws require a nomination.” I think it would be necessary to review the exact wording of the bylaws to determine if this means that a valid nomination is a requirement for office, and, if so, whether the fact that a nomination was made by a person who was not eligible to make a nomination would be a continuing breach in regard to the subsequent election of that person.

[Richard Brown]

6 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I think it is difficult to answer this question because I am uncertain exactly what is meant by “if the bylaws require a nomination.” I think it would be necessary to review the exact wording of the bylaws to determine if this means that a valid nomination is a requirement for office, and, if so, whether the fact that a nomination was made by a person who was not eligible to make a nomination would be a continuing breach in regard to the subsequent election of that person.

I agree that this is ultimately a question of interpreting the bylaws. However, absent some wording that makes it clear a valid nomination from someone entitled to make nominations is a prerequisite or qualification for holding office, I would still be of the opinion that a timely point of order would be required. 

[Josh Martin]

3 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree that this is ultimately a question of interpreting the bylaws. However, absent some wording that makes it clear a valid nomination from someone entitled to make nominations is a prerequisite or qualification for holding office, I would still be of the opinion that a timely point of order would be required. 

Yes, I agree that, generally speaking, a timely Point of Order would be required.

[J. J.]

Agreeing with both my colleagues, if the bylaws would say something along the lines that "only those people nominated shall be eligible for election," that an nomination would be required.  That would create a condition of eligibility.  In this particular case, there was a nomination, so even that rule would not apply.