improper election

[abcdave]

Our non-profit organization has our elections in June for officers to start their term in August.

Our bylaws state, "In order for a candidate to be eligible for a Vice-President position, he/she must have held the previous position for at least one year - i.e. to become 1st V.P. one must have served as 2nd V.P. for at least one year, to become 2nd V.P. one must have served as 3rd. V.P.... The only exception is 4th V.P. which is eligible for anyone who has served at least 2 years on the Board."

There was a lot of confusion at our annual meeting this year - owing partly to the fact that some years ago, our (local) organization was dissolvled and re-formed (the parent - national - organization dissolved and a new "merged" organization was formed out of what was seperate organizations.)

To make a long story short, we elected a 1st Vice-President who was never a Vice President of this organization even though he did go "through the chairs" in the "old organization". The 2nd V.P. was not able to attend this meeting but protested the election immediately afterward (as soon as he heard). At that point, he was told (by national hq) that election protests have to be made "at the time of the election" - this is a "new rule" that replaces a rule that stated "within 14 days".

So, the election can not be protested - but the person elected to the office of 1st Vice-President (according to our bylaws) is not eligible. Can (should?) a Point of Order be raised when he is sworn in - or having been elected, does he automatically assume the office when the term begins - swearing in being just a formality?

Either way, does his not being eligible constitute a continuing breach - or is this a non-issue since the election apparently has to stand?

[hmtcastle]

Either way, does his not being eligible constitute a continuing breach - or is this a non-issue since the election apparently has to stand?

Per RONR alone it's a continuing breach but per your national rules, which supersede RONR, it looks like it's it might be a done deal.

[Trina]

Per RONR alone it's a continuing breach but per your national rules, which supersede RONR, it looks like it's it might be a done deal.

But maybe, 'protesting the election' is a specific process described under the national rules (and that process is no longer open to them). However, does that really mean that other parliamentary tools to achieve a similar goal (e.g. raising a point of order about a continuing breach) are also off limits?

[hmtcastle]

does that really mean that other parliamentary tools to achieve a similar goal (e.g. raising a point of order about a continuing breach) are also off limits?

I think that would be a bylaws interpretation question.

[Josh Martin]

Can (should?) a Point of Order be raised when he is sworn in - or having been elected, does he automatically assume the office when the term begins - swearing in being just a formality?

Either way, does his not being eligible constitute a continuing breach - or is this a non-issue since the election apparently has to stand?

Swearing in is just a formality. He automatically takes office when the term begins. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 430, lines 16-20) Under RONR, this would constitute a continuing breach as it is a violation of the eligibility requirements in the Bylaws. The election would be null and void, and a Point of Order could be raised at any time so long as he remained in office and ineligible. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 244, lines 4-11, 25-26) You appear to have customized rules on the matter, however, which supersede RONR. If there is any ambiguity, it is up to the organization to interpret its own rules. (RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573) In other words, you'll need to ask the national association

Trina's suggestion certainly seems like a possibility, however, as many organizations allow for elections to be "protested" after the fact for reasons beyond those allowed in RONR. The "election protest" rule may or may not apply to a Point of Order regarding ineligibility for office.