Effect of Nulifying Illegal Actoin

[rblevow]

To set the context, we recently held elections for members of our board that resulted in the election of many new members to the board. To differentiate, I will use the term "old board" to refer to the board membership before the election and "new board" to refer to the current membership.

Our old board took disciplinary action against a member even though our constitution specifies that such actions are to be considered by a specified grievance committee. The old board never considered this. The action was taken immediately before the election. Members of the new board raised the issue and there is now unanimous agreement that the old board action was not permitted by the constitution. Consequently, the new board is preparing to void all action of the old board on this matter. Are there any problems with this?

There is a wrinkle that makes this more interesting and is the primary focus of my question. Under the disciplinary action, the member concerned was ineligible to vote in the election but was permitted to vote. (Very bad form!) The election for one position was decided by a single, unidentifiable vote. If the discipline is valid, we need to revote. While we consider this mess, we have not seated the individual in the contested election. If we nullify the disciplinary action, is the original vote then valid? And, are there any other problems I've missed?

Thanks for any thoughts that may help us through this difficult situation.

[J. J.]

To set the context, we recently held elections for members of our board that resulted in the election of many new members to the board. To differentiate, I will use the term "old board" to refer to the board membership before the election and "new board" to refer to the current membership.

Our old board took disciplinary action against a member even though our constitution specifies that such actions are to be considered by a specified grievance committee. The old board never considered this. The action was taken immediately before the election. Members of the new board raised the issue and there is now unanimous agreement that the old board action was not permitted by the constitution. Consequently, the new board is preparing to void all action of the old board on this matter. Are there any problems with this?

There is a wrinkle that makes this more interesting and is the primary focus of my question. Under the disciplinary action, the member concerned was ineligible to vote in the election but was permitted to vote. (Very bad form!) The election for one position was decided by a single, unidentifiable vote. If the discipline is valid, we need to revote. While we consider this mess, we have not seated the individual in the contested election. If we nullify the disciplinary action, is the original vote then valid? And, are there any other problems I've missed?

Thanks for any thoughts that may help us through this difficult situation.

If the problem with the disciplinary action violated the bylaws, in might be subject to a point of order. That would be the main issue.

[Guest guest]

I tend to hang this on credentials. No one is monitoring the balloting?

Had credentials been paying attention, someone should have noted the discrepancy in eligible voters.

I'm guessing what's done is done.

But if there's a revote, is there a record of those who voted? Are those who abstained eligible to cast votes in a second election? I would also suspect that election would only pertain to the one-vote margin position as the others couuld not have been affected by one vote.

[J. J.]

I tend to hang this on credentials. No one is monitoring the balloting?

Had credentials been paying attention, someone should have noted the discrepancy in eligible voters.

I'm guessing what's done is done.

But if there's a revote, is there a record of those who voted? Are those who abstained eligible to cast votes in a second election? I would also suspect that election would only pertain to the one-vote margin position as the others couuld not have been affected by one vote.

It may not be, but the first question is on the disciplinary action.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Our old board took disciplinary action against a member even though our constitution specifies that such actions are to be considered by a specified grievance committee.

...

Are there any problems with this?

Since the correct answer depends on the exact wording of your customized disciplinary process, then no applicable page citation from RONR will likely apply.

You are asking, in essence, "Were the rules complied with?"

To which we can only reply, "We haven't read any rules. We only read your briefest synopsis of some actions."

For example:

• If the rule were to be worded one way, there is nothing wrong with a board bypassing a grievance committee.

• If the rule were to be worded another way, the board exceeded its authority.

• And if the rule were to be worded yet a third way, an ambiguity would arise, where there is no "yes" or "no" answer possible.

Since your question is akin to "What does our disciplinary rules mean, and how to they apply?" and NOT a question on the current (tenth) edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, then the canned response must be:

"Where you are dealing with a customized process, the organization itself determines the interpretation and the applicability of its own unique rules."

That's the risk you take when you choose to "jump outside" The Book, and draft your own procedures. - You lose out on a simple, clear, proven answer.

[jstackpo]

Assuming (perhaps rashly) that roy-b's accounts of the fact are correct and that a p. 244 continuing breach did occur (per roy-b's bylaws, &c.) then the disciplinary action of denying the member his rights was null and void right from the git-go and the vote he cast counts in the election.

Raising the point of order at a later meeting, "voiding" the action, is merely a recognition of the fact that the action was indeed null and void the moment it was (supposedly) done and gets it on the official record, the minutes, that the association recognizes that fact.

The vote in question was valid when it was cast, it didn't somehow "become" valid after the fact when the point of order was raised.

[rblevow]

Since the correct answer depends on the exact wording of your customized disciplinary process, then no applicable page citation from RONR will likely apply.

You are asking, in essence, "Were the rules complied with?"

To which we can only reply, "We haven't read any rules. We only read your briefest synopsis of some actions."

Here's the relevant section of the constitution.

Grievance Committee is responsible for hearing complaints and appeals made or brought by one or more of the members.

The intent is that all such issues go to the Grievance Committee.

That's the risk you take when you choose to "jump outside" The Book, and draft your own procedures. - You lose out on a simple, clear, proven answer.

Yes, we are in deep trouble for having gone off course, largely because key people were not paying attention to the rules. The problem for the new board is how best to correct the past errors.