Is the election of a member valid if they did not meet requirements

[Jim Hickey]

Hello,

Our club recently held its annual elections.  Because there were 2 positions with no candidates, requests were taken from the floor.  Several members volunteered but did not meet the requirements of being at 6 meeting.  The Board included these members in the candidate pool, even though they did not meet all requirements and continued with the vote.  In both instances, members who did not meet the 6 meeting minimum were elected by an overwhelming majority.  All elections were completed, recorded as final on the night of the meeting.  The following week, one Board member (who was present on election night) stated that these elected members should be removed and replaced with other members who did meet all requirements, even though they received a very small amount of the vote.  Yes, there is a bit of political infighting going on!!  The majority of the Officers have agreed that, even though there were errors made in allowing candidates to run, the election was completed with overwhelming result.  The question is, does a minority group of Officers have the right to refuse the candidate (who won with a large majority vote) and assign a candidate who received significantly lower votes the office.

Hoping for guidance,

Jim

 

[George Mervosh]

On 12/27/2022 at 11:15 AM, Jim Hickey said:

Hello,

Our club recently held its annual elections.  Because there were 2 positions with no candidates, requests were taken from the floor.  Several members volunteered but did not meet the requirements of being at 6 meeting.  The Board included these members in the candidate pool, even though they did not meet all requirements and continued with the vote.  In both instances, members who did not meet the 6 meeting minimum were elected by an overwhelming majority.  All elections were completed, recorded as final on the night of the meeting.  The following week, one Board member (who was present on election night) stated that these elected members should be removed and replaced with other members who did meet all requirements, even though they received a very small amount of the vote.  Yes, there is a bit of political infighting going on!!  The majority of the Officers have agreed that, even though there were errors made in allowing candidates to run, the election was completed with overwhelming result.  The question is, does a minority group of Officers have the right to refuse the candidate (who won with a large majority vote) and assign a candidate who received significantly lower votes the office.

 

Not exactly.  At a regular or properly called meeting a point of order should be made that those individuals did not meeting the requirements for holding office.  The point of order will be ruled on by the chair and subject to appeal if necessary.  If the point is well taken and not overturned on appeal, a new election for those two positions would be held.  Those who were already a candidate for office but did not receive the required majority vote have no special status, but can be nominated for the positions along with any other eligible members.

From your facts I'm not crystal clear that a proper point of order was made and ruled upon by the chair.  Perhaps you can clarify that for us.

See RONR (12th ed.), 46:48-9.

[Josh Martin]

On 12/27/2022 at 10:15 AM, Jim Hickey said:

Our club recently held its annual elections.  Because there were 2 positions with no candidates, requests were taken from the floor.  Several members volunteered but did not meet the requirements of being at 6 meeting.  The Board included these members in the candidate pool, even though they did not meet all requirements and continued with the vote.  In both instances, members who did not meet the 6 meeting minimum were elected by an overwhelming majority.  All elections were completed, recorded as final on the night of the meeting.  The following week, one Board member (who was present on election night) stated that these elected members should be removed and replaced with other members who did meet all requirements, even though they received a very small amount of the vote.  Yes, there is a bit of political infighting going on!!  The majority of the Officers have agreed that, even though there were errors made in allowing candidates to run, the election was completed with overwhelming result.  The question is, does a minority group of Officers have the right to refuse the candidate (who won with a large majority vote) and assign a candidate who received significantly lower votes the office.

The election of these persons as board members is not valid, notwithstanding the overwhelming vote. If the bylaws provide that persons must have attended six meetings in order to be eligible for office, such a requirement cannot be suspended unless the bylaws provide for its suspension. Furthermore, the election of persons who are ineligible to serve constitutes a continuing breach, and a Point of Order regarding this matter may be raised at any time during the term of service of these board members, even although the election is final.

"Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be suspended—no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may be—unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension, or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order as described in 2:14." RONR (12th ed.) 25:7

"Otherwise, an election may be contested only by raising a point of order. The general rule is that such a point of order must be timely, as described in 23:5. If an election is disputed on the ground that a quorum was not present, the provisions in the last sentence of 40:12 apply. Other exceptions to the general timeliness requirement are those that come within the five categories listed in 23:6, in which cases a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected. For example:

a) If an individual does not meet the qualifications for the post established in the bylaws, his or her election is tantamount to adoption of a main motion that conflicts with the bylaws." RONR (12th ed.) 46:49

So the board members in the minority are correct that the elections should be declared invalid, however, there are some other problems with their argument.

First, the board (let alone a minority of the board) lacks the authority to make this determination, unless the bylaws provide otherwise. Because these elections were completed by the club's membership, only the club's membership has the authority to declare the elections invalid. A Point of Order, followed by an Appeal if necessary, would be raised regarding this matter at a meeting of the club's membership.

"Because the voting body itself is the ultimate judge of election disputes, only that body has the authority to resolve them in the absence of a bylaw or special rule of order that specifically grants another body that authority. Thus, for example, when an election has been conducted at a membership meeting or in a convention of delegates, an executive board, even one that is given full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the body that conducted the election, may not entertain a point of order challenging, or direct a recount concerning, the announced election result. While an election dispute is immediately pending before the voting body, however, it may vote to refer the dispute to a committee or board to which it delegates power to resolve the dispute." RONR (12th ed.) 46:50

Second, when an election is declared invalid, that doesn't mean the "runner-up" automatically gets the position. Rather, the election would be conducted again.

Finally, I would note that the organization may wish to consider amending its bylaws to remove the "six meeting" rule or, in the alternative, amend the rule to provide a mechanism for its suspension.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/27/2022 at 11:15 AM, Jim Hickey said:

Hello,

Our club recently held its annual elections.  Because there were 2 positions with no candidates, requests were taken from the floor.  Several members volunteered but did not meet the requirements of being at 6 meeting.  The Board included these members in the candidate pool, even though they did not meet all requirements and continued with the vote.  In both instances, members who did not meet the 6 meeting minimum were elected by an overwhelming majority.  All elections were completed, recorded as final on the night of the meeting.  The following week, one Board member (who was present on election night) stated that these elected members should be removed and replaced with other members who did meet all requirements, even though they received a very small amount of the vote.  Yes, there is a bit of political infighting going on!!  The majority of the Officers have agreed that, even though there were errors made in allowing candidates to run, the election was completed with overwhelming result.  The question is, does a minority group of Officers have the right to refuse the candidate (who won with a large majority vote) and assign a candidate who received significantly lower votes the office.

Hoping for guidance,

Jim

 

The board is arguing about things that it has no authority to meddle in, in the first place.  It is true that people who are not eligible to be elected were not, in fact, elected, and a Point of Order should be raised to declare their election void.  But this must take place at a meeting of the same body in which the election was held, and as it then results in an incomplete election, the same body that must now go about completing that election properly.

In particular, nobody, including the board, can just stick people in office who lost the election.  A new, properly conducted election is required for those vacated seats.  Votes for ineligible candidates should be counted as illegal votes.

Edited December 27, 2022 at 11:30 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Jim Hickey]

On 12/27/2022 at 11:28 AM, George Mervosh said:

Not exactly.  At a regular or properly called meeting a point of order should be made that those individuals did not meeting the requirements for holding office.  The point of order will be ruled on by the chair and subject to appeal if necessary.  If the point is well taken and not overturned on appeal, a new election for those two positions would be held.  Those who were already a candidate for office but did not receive the required majority vote have no special status, but can be nominated for the positions along with any other eligible members.

From your facts I'm not crystal clear that a proper point of order was made and ruled upon by the chair.  Perhaps you can clarify that for us.

See RONR (12th ed.), 46:48-9.

Hi George, There was no Point of Order made on the night of the election.  Thank you for providing info.  It is very helpful to me.

[George Mervosh]

On 12/28/2022 at 7:36 PM, Jim Hickey said:

Hi George, There was no Point of Order made on the night of the election.  Thank you for providing info.  It is very helpful to me.

I would also refer you to Mr. Martin's post where he notes this (I think Mr. Novosielski was also trying to get this point across):

On 12/27/2022 at 11:34 AM, Josh Martin said:

First, the board (let alone a minority of the board) lacks the authority to make this determination, unless the bylaws provide otherwise. Because these elections were completed by the club's membership, only the club's membership has the authority to declare the elections invalid. A Point of Order, followed by an Appeal if necessary, would be raised regarding this matter at a meeting of the club's membership.

 

[Jim Hickey]

On 12/27/2022 at 11:34 AM, Josh Martin said:

The election of these persons as board members is not valid, notwithstanding the overwhelming vote. If the bylaws provide that persons must have attended six meetings in order to be eligible for office, such a requirement cannot be suspended unless the bylaws provide for its suspension. Furthermore, the election of persons who are ineligible to serve constitutes a continuing breach, and a Point of Order regarding this matter may be raised at any time during the term of service of these board members, even although the election is final.

"Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be suspended—no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may be—unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension, or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order as described in 2:14." RONR (12th ed.) 25:7

"Otherwise, an election may be contested only by raising a point of order. The general rule is that such a point of order must be timely, as described in 23:5. If an election is disputed on the ground that a quorum was not present, the provisions in the last sentence of 40:12 apply. Other exceptions to the general timeliness requirement are those that come within the five categories listed in 23:6, in which cases a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected. For example:

a) If an individual does not meet the qualifications for the post established in the bylaws, his or her election is tantamount to adoption of a main motion that conflicts with the bylaws." RONR (12th ed.) 46:49

So the board members in the minority are correct that the elections should be declared invalid, however, there are some other problems with their argument.

First, the board (let alone a minority of the board) lacks the authority to make this determination, unless the bylaws provide otherwise. Because these elections were completed by the club's membership, only the club's membership has the authority to declare the elections invalid. A Point of Order, followed by an Appeal if necessary, would be raised regarding this matter at a meeting of the club's membership.

"Because the voting body itself is the ultimate judge of election disputes, only that body has the authority to resolve them in the absence of a bylaw or special rule of order that specifically grants another body that authority. Thus, for example, when an election has been conducted at a membership meeting or in a convention of delegates, an executive board, even one that is given full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the body that conducted the election, may not entertain a point of order challenging, or direct a recount concerning, the announced election result. While an election dispute is immediately pending before the voting body, however, it may vote to refer the dispute to a committee or board to which it delegates power to resolve the dispute." RONR (12th ed.) 46:50

Second, when an election is declared invalid, that doesn't mean the "runner-up" automatically gets the position. Rather, the election would be conducted again.

Finally, I would note that the organization may wish to consider amending its bylaws to remove the "six meeting" rule or, in the alternative, amend the rule to provide a mechanism for its suspension.

Thank You all for your responses.  They were very helpful.  I think the key takeaways for me are that the BOG does not have the right to overturn an election. Only the General Body can recognize that the election was flawed and should be voided for these specific positions.  I believe they may still do this at the upcoming General Body meeting. So I would think there may be some members who wish to pursue this issue by submitting a Point of Order.  But I believe their Point of Order can only be to void the election.  If the majority votes to not void the election, the election stands?

To complicate things, the Nominating Committee also failed to adhere to the Constitution.  There is a provision in our Constitution which provides the Nominating Committee the ability to waive the 6 meeting requirement.  Because the General Body was not notified as required, the opportunity to "waive the Requirement" was lost.  This would have prevented the situation from ever occurring.

Thank you again for you input.  I hope to someday become knowledgeable enough to be able to provide opinions of my own.

Jim

 

[Josh Martin]

On 12/29/2022 at 9:57 AM, Jim Hickey said:

Thank You all for your responses.  They were very helpful.  I think the key takeaways for me are that the BOG does not have the right to overturn an election. Only the General Body can recognize that the election was flawed and should be voided for these specific positions.  I believe they may still do this at the upcoming General Body meeting. So I would think there may be some members who wish to pursue this issue by submitting a Point of Order.  But I believe their Point of Order can only be to void the election.  If the majority votes to not void the election, the election stands?

Yes, this is correct, but it must be noted that the decision in this matter should be based upon the members' honest interpretation of the rules, not their personal wishes.

I would also note that the procedure for consideration of a Point of Order and subsequent Appeal is as follows (it does not go directly to a vote):

• A member would raise a Point of Order that the election is invalid, stating the reasons why.
• In either case, the chair rules the Point of Order "well taken," meaning the chair agrees with the Point of Order, or "not well taken," meaning the chair disagrees. In either case, the chair explains the reasoning for this ruling.
• In the alternative, the chair can (and in my view, should) rule the election invalid on his own initiative, explaining the reasoning for his ruling.
• In either case, after a ruling has been made by the chair, a member who disagrees with the chair's ruling would move to Appeal from the chair's ruling. If this is seconded, the decision is then placed in the hands of the assembly.
• After debate, the assembly would vote on whether to sustain the ruling of the chair. A majority vote in the negative is required to overturn the chair's ruling.

On 12/29/2022 at 9:57 AM, Jim Hickey said:

To complicate things, the Nominating Committee also failed to adhere to the Constitution.  There is a provision in our Constitution which provides the Nominating Committee the ability to waive the 6 meeting requirement.  Because the General Body was not notified as required, the opportunity to "waive the Requirement" was lost.  This would have prevented the situation from ever occurring.

I think you are correct that this may complicate things. Could you state precisely what the bylaws say on this matter? If the bylaws provide a mechanism to suspend the six meeting requirement, that may change things.

[Gary Novosielski]

I had the impression that only some of the elected candidates were ineligible.  If any eligible candidates were elected by a majority, their election would stand.  The Point of Order would only be with respect to those who were not eligible.

This is probably obvious, but just in case.

[puzzling]

On 12/30/2022 at 5:30 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

I had the impression that only some of the elected candidates were ineligible.  If any eligible candidates were elected by a majority, their election would stand.  The Point of Order would only be with respect to those who were not eligible.

This is probably obvious, but just in case.

not sure about this. Suppose the results were

A ( ineligible) 10 votes

B ( ineligible) 10 votes

C ( ineligible) 10 votes

D ( eligible) 8 votes

E( eligible) 8 votes

majority required 6 votes

number of posts 3

I am not sure  that when the election of A B and C  is deemed void D  and E are suddenly elected.

I do think that if the election was for 4 posts D would still be elected but E would still not be elected

Edited December 30, 2022 at 03:31 PM by puzzling
more details

[Josh Martin]

On 12/30/2022 at 7:32 AM, puzzling said:

not sure about this. Suppose the results were

A ( ineligible) 10 votes

B ( ineligible) 10 votes

C ( ineligible) 10 votes

D ( eligible) 8 votes

E( eligible) 8 votes

majority required 6 votes

number of posts 3

For starters, it should be noted that the math doesn't add up in this scenario. If a majority is 6 votes, this means that either 10 or 11 ballots were cast in total. If there are three spots open, that would mean a total of (at most) 33 votes. But you have a total of 46 votes here.

Second, I don't think this is the situation we have. We are told the following:

On 12/27/2022 at 10:15 AM, Jim Hickey said:

Because there were 2 positions with no candidates, requests were taken from the floor.  Several members volunteered but did not meet the requirements of being at 6 meeting.  The Board included these members in the candidate pool, even though they did not meet all requirements and continued with the vote.  In both instances, members who did not meet the 6 meeting minimum were elected by an overwhelming majority. All elections were completed, recorded as final on the night of the meeting.  The following week, one Board member (who was present on election night) stated that these elected members should be removed and replaced with other members who did meet all requirements, even though they received a very small amount of the vote.

So my understanding is as follows:

There were more than two positions elected at the meeting in question. Two positions had no candidates, however, there were also other positions to be elected with eligible candidates. I am not certain exactly what form this took. It may be that these were distinct positions (President, Vice President, etc.). In such a case, certainly there is no doubt that the other distinct positions were elected. It may be that there were multiple director positions to elect. It may also be that there was some combination of these. In any event, however, the "runners-up" did not receive a majority of the vote, since we are told they "received a very small amount of the vote."

When Mr. Novosielski said, "If any eligible candidates were elected by a majority, their election would stand," I understand him to be referring to a.) persons who were elected with a majority to a distinct position and b.) if this was an election for multiple identical positions, persons who were elected with a majority and met the other requirements for election. In other words, I do not think Mr. Novosielski was referring to the "runners-up." Rather, he was referring to other winners from the election who were eligible for office. In this respect, I quite agree with Mr. Novosielski that, based upon the facts presented, there is no reason to invalidate the election in its entirety, just the election of the ineligible candidates.

With that said, I think the scenario you have raised (in which multiple identical positions are elected, more candidates receive a majority than there are available seats, and a Point of Order is later raised regarding the eligibility of some candidates) may be an interesting question, but I don't think we need to reach that question here, since it doesn't seem that's what happened.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/30/2022 at 8:32 AM, puzzling said:

I am not sure  that when the election of A B and C  is deemed void D  and E are suddenly elected.

I do think that if the election was for 4 posts D would still be elected but E would still not be elected

I agree with @Josh Martin that the votes do not appear to add up.  How many ballots were cast in this election?  

I don't see why D and E would not be elected if they indeed had a majority, which I'm not convinced they do.

If there were an additional seat open, why would D be elected in preference to E, when they had the same number of votes?  

[Alicia Percell, PRP]

On 12/29/2022 at 9:09 AM, Josh Martin said:

On 12/29/2022 at 7:57 AM, Jim Hickey said:

If the majority votes to not void the election, the election stands?

Yes, this is correct, but it must be noted that the decision in this matter should be based upon the members' honest interpretation of the rules, not their personal wishes.

Regarding Mr. Martin's caution above, I'd take it further.  If the bylaw which defines the eligibility is in some way vague, and the point of order is used for the assembly to interpret its meaning, that's what an appeal is for.  However RONR does not allow use of a point of order, a ruling, and an appeal to just merely bulldoze a clear bylaw if that's what the majority votes to do.  See RONR (12th ed.) 24:3(2) in discussing rules for appeals, the appeal:

"2. Can be applied to any ruling by the presiding officer except that  a)   [...]   b) when the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed."

If it's really clear that these people are not eligible under the bylaws, then the chair should not allow an appeal because there's nothing to be interpreted.  Refusing to allow such an improper appeal is the chair's job, but it can have political ramifications, and the chair should politically protect himself by explaining such a refusal and reading the passage quoted above and saying in detail how it applies to the eligibility rule at issue.  Otherwise, people less familiar with RONR may fling accusations that the chair was allegedly abusing his power, or denying the members a vote, or some such nonsense, when he is really just doing his job to adhere to the bylaws.  There are situations in which an appeal is not allowed.

[Alicia Percell, PRP]

To add a little more, in 47:4 is a list of chair duties, and it includes:

"5) To protect the assembly from obviously dilatory motions by refusing to recognize them (39).

6) To enforce the rules relating to debate and those relating to order and decorum within the assembly (3:9–13; 4:27–32; 43)."

 

 

"