standing bylaws supposedly wrongly introduced

[fnf]

A bylaw is in writing and is in effect for an organization for about 7 or 8 years. Now with upcoming elections, a offficer nominated for a higher positon does not meet department criteria based on the bylaw. He claims, with others that the bylaw is illegal and was accidentally put into efffect without proper voting. In the fact that it has been adhered to for a number of years already, and with no supposed documentation to back the illegality of it, is it grandfathered or such based on its use in the past?

[Tim Wynn]

A bylaw is in writing and is in effect for an organization for about 7 or 8 years.

Now with upcoming elections, a offficer nominated for a higher positon does not meet department criteria based on the bylaw. He claims, with others that the bylaw is illegal and was accidentally put into efffect without proper voting.

I would like to know exactly what the claim is. On what grounds are they deeming it illegal?

Are they claiming that the bylaws, kept by the secretary, are inaccurate? You should be able to check the minutes of the meeting that so amended the bylaws to verify this rule's adoption.

In the fact that it has been adhered to for a number of years already, and with no supposed documentation to back the illegality of it, is it grandfathered or such based on its use in the past?

No. This wouldn't apply to eligibility for office. If the bylaws say you're eligible, no custom would invalidate that. If the bylaws say you're not eligible, no custom would invalidate this, either.

[fnf]

I would like to know exactly what the claim is. On what grounds are they deeming it illegal?

Are they claiming that the bylaws, kept by the secretary, are inaccurate? You should be able to check the minutes of the meeting that so amended the bylaws to verify this rule's adoption.

No. This wouldn't apply to eligibility for office. If the bylaws say you're eligible, no custom would invalidate that. If the bylaws say you're not eligible, no custom would invalidate this, either.

[fnf]

The supposed illegal bylaw claim comes from someone running for the position of fire chief but as per existing bylaws, he does not have the background. Now he and his followers state that the bylaw stating eligibility was accidentally put in the bylaws and is not valid. The bylaw has been in effect for 8 years at least but does it become binding even if it is found to be accidentally added in the past? Research is being done to find out at present.

[fnf]

The supposed illegal bylaw claim comes from someone running for the position of fire chief but as per existing bylaws, he does not have the background. Now he and his followers state that the bylaw stating eligibility was accidentally put in the bylaws and is not valid. The bylaw has been in effect for 8 years at least but does it become binding even if it is found to be accidentally added in the past? Research is being done to find out at present.

[fnf]

I guess you can say that the bylaw isnt convinient for this nominee, so, he is trying to make it work so he can be elected although he never contested it in the past for others.

[Tim Wynn]

Now he and his followers state that the bylaw stating eligibility was accidentally put in the bylaws and is not valid.

It can't be deemed invalid for being "accidentally" adopted. That would require looking into the motives or competence of those who adopted the bylaw, not to mention all those who allowed it to continue.

A legitimate scenario would be if the current copy of the bylaws is "accidentally" inaccurate. If that's the case, and the accurate set of bylaws can be discerned, the accurate bylaws would govern. The burden of proof would be on those making the claim. In my estimation, they would have to prove that the contested bylaw was either 1) never adopted or 2) amended since its adoption. In any event, if it comes down to it, the assembly will have the last word in deciding this.

[Tim Wynn]

I guess you can say that the bylaw isnt convinient for this nominee, so, he is trying to make it work so he can be elected although he never contested it in the past for others.

Perhaps, he should put all this effort into getting the bylaws amended to make him eligible.

[Guest fhines]

Fire Department elections are coming up and a person running for the position of Chief, is deemed ineligible due to lack of proper training background as required by the bylaws. The person and his cronies are stating that the article was illegally added as it is claimed that it never passed voting eight years ago but has been in effect for previous elections since that time.

[Tim Wynn]

Fire Department elections are coming up and a person running for the position of Chief, is deemed ineligible due to lack of proper training background as required by the bylaws. The person and his cronies are stating that the article was illegally added as it is claimed that it never passed voting eight years ago but has been in effect for previous elections since that time.

Let's see the proof... until then, we'll assume the bylaws are accurate.

[Tim Wynn]

Let's see the proof... until then, we'll assume the bylaws are accurate.

Bylaws don't have to defend themselves against unsupported claims. The bylaws shouldn't lose a minute of sleep over this.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

A bylaw is in writing and is in effect for an organization for about 7 or 8 years. Now with upcoming elections, a officer nominated for a higher position does not meet department criteria based on the bylaw.

He claims, with others that the bylaw is illegal and was accidentally put into efffect without proper voting. In the fact that it has been adhered to for a number of years already, and with no supposed documentation to back the illegality of it, is it grandfathered or such based on its use in the past?

(Does he have any evidence that this is so? Or are you merely taking him at his word?)

Okay. Then do this.

• Tell him he is wrong. - "It was no accident."

At that point, it will be up to him to convince a majority of the organization (via a Point of Order) that he is correct.

If cannot garner a majority vote to support his assertion (his Point of Order), then the issue is dead.

Move on.

[Gary Novosielski]

The supposed illegal bylaw claim comes from someone running for the position of fire chief but as per existing bylaws, he does not have the background. Now he and his followers state that the bylaw stating eligibility was accidentally put in the bylaws and is not valid. The bylaw has been in effect for 8 years at least but does it become binding even if it is found to be accidentally added in the past? Research is being done to find out at present.

I guess the research will tell you the answer. It will be binding if it was properly adopted, and not binding if it was "accidentally" changed.